Wrestling

[Taynted_Fayth]

First raw ive watched in a few weeks, only thing worth getting excited about is my new crush, lana. I honest dont like any mcmahon closing out the show, tho I woulda like to see taker put a hurt on shane as vince's *****, then next week announce he cant compete so in his place is kurt angle. Then I think id be interested in watching WM

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

First raw ive watched in a few weeks, only thing worth getting excited about is my new crush, lana. I honest dont like any mcmahon closing out the show, tho I woulda like to see taker put a hurt on shane as vince's *****, then next week announce he cant compete so in his place is kurt angle. Then I think id be interested in watching WM

Tjere was a small part of me that thought they'd actually being in Angle since they played up his match with Shane. Use angle as Shane's mentor and mouth piece. Man that would hve made it ten times better. Even use the match as not just for control of WWE but as Angle's only chance at a contract. Tell the real story of Hunter and Vince stone walling Angle in the past. 

[Taynted_Fayth]

Weird I caught the end of raw just before 10, then watched the replay at 11,  at the end when undertaker came out the first time, the chants were awful, couldnt figure out what people were trying to chant and get in unison with.  the replay right now ar 1:50am  its suddenly a clear boisterous undertaker lol

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

Weird I caught the end of raw just before 10, then watched the replay at 11,  at the end when undertaker came out the first time, the chants were awful, couldnt figure out what people were trying to chant and get in unison with.  the replay right now ar 1:50am  its suddenly a clear boisterous undertaker lol

Really? Wow. Pittsburgh is a dead town. Tjere were some undertaker chants and when Shane came out there were Shane o Mac chants

did they sweeten Shane's reaction??

[Taynted_Fayth]

Ill have to rewind but I know the undertaker chant wasnt there the first time, or at least as loud and clear. They were pretty deadtthroughout the HHH/ziggler match too

[Taynted_Fayth]

Mick foley got a good pop in his backstage promo with ambrose tho

[Taynted_Fayth]

There were faint shane o mac chants, but it sounded like the same type of react the undertaker got the first time, mixed and quiet.  They seemed to have taken out the crowds ooooh's when shane messed up on the mic too

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

There were faint shane o mac chants, but it sounded like the same type of react the undertaker got the first time, mixed and quiet.  They seemed to have taken out the crowds ooooh's when shane messed up on the mic too

If they sweetened undertakers reaction but not Shane's that would be pretty telling....

[Taynted_Fayth]

Well I remember the first time around thinking, geez undertakers entrance is too long to be the last spot of the night, especially just to talk on the mic, when his music stopped I was expecting the un der taker chant that usually happens but the noise was cluttered with nothing really happening, and vince started talking till shane came out. Shane got same type of reaction, but they did forsure change the undertaker to a clear and loud chant and left shanes as is

[iso_55]

WWE is really ******* up their fanbase. They love Undertaker, want the Authority... errr... Stephanie gone but they also want Shane to win at WrestleMania so who do they cheer for? Triple H is supposed to be the heel but they boo the face Roman. Is it any wonder the fans are totally conflicted by what is going on so they're not enthusiastic? Fans want change but not the stuff the WWE is serving up to them now. I can't get thru Raw anymore as the plots, storylines & just general common sense & logic is all out of whack.  I may watch an hour or so channel surfing now but I watch other shows now. They've almost lost me as a fan. Pretty disgruntled, actually.

Edited March 15, 2016 by iso_55

[The Unknown Poster]

6 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

Well I remember the first time around thinking, geez undertakers entrance is too long to be the last spot of the night, especially just to talk on the mic, when his music stopped I was expecting the un der taker chant that usually happens but the noise was cluttered with nothing really happening, and vince started talking till shane came out. Shane got same type of reaction, but they did forsure change the undertaker to a clear and loud chant and left shanes as is

Hey Taynted, good discussion.  Thanks for that!  I was very annoyed when my PVR screwed up but I would never have bothered watching the live broadcast and the replay so the fact they were so quick to sweeten a reaction is very interesting!

[The Unknown Poster]

5 hours ago, iso_55 said:

WWE is really ******* up their fanbase. They love Undertaker, want the Authority... errr... Stephanie gone but they also want Shane to win at WrestleMania so who do they cheer for? Triple H is supposed to be the heel but they boo the face Roman. Is it any wonder the fans are totally conflicted by what is going on so they're not enthusiastic? Fans want change but not the stuff the WWE is serving up to them now. I can't get thru Raw anymore as the plots, storylines & just general common sense & logic is all out of whack.  I may watch an hour or so channel surfing now but I watch other shows now. They've almost lost me as a fan. Pretty disgruntled, actually.

Cant agree more.  Its really an issue WWE has had for awhile.  When there was competition, they were forced to react more to what they thought the fans wanted.  They reacted more to ratings trends.  Now, the Network is their bread and butter and they arent overly concerned about ratings because they have a long contract with USA.

But the difference is, they now see the fans as an impediment to what they do.  The fans boo'ing Roman is not a reflection of Roman to them, it's an example of those "stupid fans not reacting right".  And they tell themselves that 12,000 people in an arena arent reflective of 3 million people watching.  Its rather absurd because there is nothing to lose by turning Roman heel (especially a year ago when it would have been hotter).  If they had turned Roman a year ago, he'd probably in the midst of turning back and being a huge face.

Hunter is a different scenario because of politics with Vince and his own ego.  One thing to notice is how Ambrose came out and talked about how he gave Hunter a beating and Hunter came out not remotely selling anything from that match,  I generally like strong heels (its how I book too) but Hunter doesnt just act like a strong heel, he devours his babyfaces.

[The Unknown Poster]

Neville suffered a broken angle in his match with Jericho on RAW after rolling the ankle on what should have been a simple "baseball slide" move.  GIF's are floating around online.  Looked very uncomfortable.

The above post is my opinion and should not be taken as fact. 

[Mike]

21 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

But why is ISO meant to proclaim an opinion and everyone is supposed to just agree and move on? 

This is kind of more or less what you do too, man.

It's really the main reason I don't post in the general discussion forum much, truth be told.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Mike said:

This is kind of more or less what you do too, man.

It's really the main reason I don't post in the general discussion forum much, truth be told.

Well at the risk of *disagreeing* and getting flamed for it, I would tend to disagree.  I actually used an exchange with you last week as an example in a private discussion about some complaints.  I had said Hanson broke Bruno's back and you posted that you thought it was his neck (or vice versa, I cant remember off hand) and I replied that you were correct.  I have ZERO problem with admitting Im wrong.  And I love to read good discussion.  Its extremely rare for me to get worked up or angry about a discussion here.  I think what happens is some people (not many, but a few) perceive a counter opinion/point as a heated argument and they get worked up and begin to project those feelings.

As I stated to someone earlier, no one complains about any posts I make in the hockey thread (and I've made a lot).  The difference is, I am knowledgeable about wrestling.  In a way, Mike, it would be like me, with limited football knowledge, taking you to task for your opinion/information/analysis of football and then complaining that you beat me in an "argument". 

Iso expressed an opinion that Owen could have surpassed Bret had he lived.  I replied with a well-thought out counter point.  I didnt insult, ridicule or mock him.  I dont want to pile on Iso now because I've had many great discussions on here with him (and in PM) but either Im not supposed to take part in a discussion or I have to pretend to be stupid about a subject I have knowledge of.  I was looking forward to Iso's retort about Owen actually. 

 

[Mike]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Well at the risk of *disagreeing* and getting flamed for it, I would tend to disagree.  I actually used an exchange with you last week as an example in a private discussion about some complaints.  I had said Hanson broke Bruno's back and you posted that you thought it was his neck (or vice versa, I cant remember off hand) and I replied that you were correct.  I have ZERO problem with admitting Im wrong.  And I love to read good discussion.  Its extremely rare for me to get worked up or angry about a discussion here.  I think what happens is some people (not many, but a few) perceive a counter opinion/point as a heated argument and they get worked up and begin to project those feelings.

As I stated to someone earlier, no one complains about any posts I make in the hockey thread (and I've made a lot).  The difference is, I am knowledgeable about wrestling.  In a way, Mike, it would be like me, with limited football knowledge, taking you to task for your opinion/information/analysis of football and then complaining that you beat me in an "argument". 

Iso expressed an opinion that Owen could have surpassed Bret had he lived.  I replied with a well-thought out counter point.  I didnt insult, ridicule or mock him.  I dont want to pile on Iso now because I've had many great discussions on here with him (and in PM) but either Im not supposed to take part in a discussion or I have to pretend to be stupid about a subject I have knowledge of.  I was looking forward to Iso's retort about Owen actually. 

 

There's a difference between arguing facts and arguing opinions. It seems like when it boils down to discussing opinions, you choose to believe yours as fact. You make a comment right at the end of your post about needing to pretend to be stupid about a subject you're knowledgeable about - that kind of says it all - just because you're knowledgeable doesn't mean you're the only one around with a valid opinion. Opinions don't always have to be right or wrong - and trust me, you don't need to tell me of all people about the concept of someone having an opinion that is not justifiable. But not every opinion fits into that mold. If someone says "I think X could've happened if not for Y", you're more than welcome to say "I don't agree" but you tend to lean more into the "you're flat out wrong" category.

And well ... if you think it's rare for you to get worked up ... I guess you are just a naturally aggressive person because the manner in which you approach a lot of discussions is very hostile and if that's not you getting worked up, I frankly don't know what else to call it.

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

There's a difference between arguing facts and arguing opinions. It seems like when it boils down to discussing opinions, you choose to believe yours as fact. You make a comment right at the end of your post about needing to pretend to be stupid about a subject you're knowledgeable about - that kind of says it all - just because you're knowledgeable doesn't mean you're the only one around with a valid opinion. Opinions don't always have to be right or wrong - and trust me, you don't need to tell me of all people about the concept of someone having an opinion that is not justifiable. But not every opinion fits into that mold. If someone says "I think X could've happened if not for Y", you're more than welcome to say "I don't agree" but you tend to lean more into the "you're flat out wrong" category.

And well ... if you think it's rare for you to get worked up ... I guess you are just a naturally aggressive person because the manner in which you approach a lot of discussions is very hostile and if that's not you getting worked up, I frankly don't know what else to call it.

Well Mike, you certainly should be aware that text on a forum doesn't usually indicate emotional state of the writer (unless they state their emotional state). 

If everyone followed your advice to me there would never be *discussion* on this discussion forum.  You would post an opinion and we'd either write "agree" or "disagree".  No discussion.

If you feel my reply about Owen was off base, please, express that.  I happen to think it was a pretty good response using facts, trends, educated guesses and odds of certain things happening.  I didn't say his opinion about Owen as a talent was wrong. 

If someone posts that Joey Elliott had more upside then Drew Willy and you responded with a post about why that's not true, should you be taken to task for that?  I have as much right to express my opinion as Iso did.  I just did it with more basis in fact.  This is entirely an ridiculous argument/issue that has arisen.

If you post that Owen Hart is your favorite wrestler I will never argue that he isn't.   But if you post Owen would have surpassed Bret, that's not just an opinion, its a discussion point that has been presented for response.  I didnt insult, mock or ridicule.  I posted a logical, knowledgeable response.

If the real issue that a couple of people are sheepish about discussing wrestling with someone with a lot of knowledge, that's not really a shot at me.  Im sheepish about discussing football with you because you know a lot more than I do.  But Im cool with that and I enjoy reading your opinion, news, analysis.  If anyone thinks otherwise, Im really easy going.  if that hasnt come across, I apologize.  I love wrestling.  I've been doing it for a long time.  And I really enjoy the discussions about it.  And since many other people seem to have perfectly reasonable discussions with me about it, I'd tend to think the few who get worked up is more about them than me.  But everyone is free to PM me if they want to take exception to my tone or posts away from prying eyes...

[Rich]

46 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Well at the risk of *disagreeing* and getting flamed for it, I would tend to disagree.  I actually used an exchange with you last week as an example in a private discussion about some complaints.  I had said Hanson broke Bruno's back and you posted that you thought it was his neck (or vice versa, I cant remember off hand) and I replied that you were correct.  I have ZERO problem with admitting Im wrong.  And I love to read good discussion.  Its extremely rare for me to get worked up or angry about a discussion here.  I think what happens is some people (not many, but a few) perceive a counter opinion/point as a heated argument and they get worked up and begin to project those feelings.

As I stated to someone earlier, no one complains about any posts I make in the hockey thread (and I've made a lot).  The difference is, I am knowledgeable about wrestling.  In a way, Mike, it would be like me, with limited football knowledge, taking you to task for your opinion/information/analysis of football and then complaining that you beat me in an "argument". 

Iso expressed an opinion that Owen could have surpassed Bret had he lived.  I replied with a well-thought out counter point.  I didnt insult, ridicule or mock him.  I dont want to pile on Iso now because I've had many great discussions on here with him (and in PM) but either Im not supposed to take part in a discussion or I have to pretend to be stupid about a subject I have knowledge of.  I was looking forward to Iso's retort about Owen actually. 

 

You use this bolded part in many of your posts on wrestling.   Maybe it is just me, but I don't find it much fun to have discussion with people who constantly tell me how good or how knowledgeable they are at something.

It is usually apparent by their words whether they are or not and I can make that judgement for myself.  I don't need people constantly telling me how good they are.

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, Rich said:

You use this bolded part in many of your posts on wrestling.   Maybe it is just me, but I don't find it much fun to have discussion with people who constantly tell me how good or how knowledgeable they are at something.

It is usually apparent by their words whether they are or not and I can make that judgement for myself.  I don't need people constantly telling me how good they are.

You might be confusing our PM's with public posts, Rich.  The only time I have stated that is in response to someone mocking me or questioning me. 

This "issue" is a self fulfilling prophecy by you guys.  if I engaged in a discussion with someone in the football forum and they were actually involved in organized football at a professional level, I would like to know that.  I'd appreciate knowing that.  I might even look at his posts in a different, more knowledgeable light.  I might even take the time to ask him questions or seek out his opinion.  Sort of like when you gave me the resume of one of the posters here who is involved in football but then mocked my experience in wrestling (this was via PM).  Im used to many people looking down on wrestling but would hope that stuff would be kept out of here since wrestling seems to be a popular topic.

EDIT: The bolded part is also relevant to the current discussion, no?

Edited March 15, 2016 by The Unknown Poster

[Mike]

Well, this seems to be going nowhere as usual.

[The Unknown Poster]

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

Well, this seems to be going nowhere as usual.

Well as someone told me recently, it takes two to tango.

[do or die]

This thread needs a special guest referee......

[Mike]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Well as someone told me recently, it takes two to tango.

If we're going to go the route of cliché phrases, I'll go with "it's like talking to a wall"

[Taynted_Fayth]

23 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Absolutely! I love the backstage stuff.  Its not as fun as it used to be now that WWE is so corporate.  But there were some good stories for awhile.

One of the reasons Heyman was fired is because Steph hated him.  He was booker of Smackdown and she was booker of RAW (she was actually in charge of both but Paul had a lot of freedom with SD).  Paul considered the brand extension to be "real" and wanted to beat RAW in the ratings.  Which SD did consistently at this time.  Paul got the code to phone into a RAW creative meeting and would listen to their plans.  Steph found out one day (there was an extra "beep" on the line) and she was furious that Paul was "spying" (one big happy company, right?).  Paul was eventually moved to ECW and after the awful December to Dismember PPV where Vince changed a bunch of things and Heyman was openly insubordinate to Vince backstage while watching, he was canned.

Steph was always paranoid.  She insisted that all the creative staff only use corporate cell phones and laptops so she could audit them whenever she wanted looking for leaks.

Hunter was notorious for cutting guys' balls off.  Since he "retired" he's been a lot better but its still pretty apparent he cant view his own angles without ego getting in the way.  Saw a Scott Hall interview where he said he and Nash were at ringside when Hunter and Sting were going over their WM match and Hunter laid out the finish and Hall couldn't believe that Sting was laying down.  He said Sting should have had it in his contract that he gets a win at WM because "ofcourse Hunter is going to go over..."

EDIT: Another thing is that Vince is pretty smart when it comes to money and corporate.  He will work with anyone to make money and water under the bridge.  Hunter & Steph hold grudges (although to be fair Hunter brought back Billy Gunn).  When AJ Lee, while under contract, sent Steph a nasty tweet about women being treated poorly compared to men in WWE, Steph was ready to strangle her and Vince cooled her off and made her publicly thank AJ for bringing it up.

Daniel Bryan is apparently at RAW tonight.  Hunter met with Kurt Angle this past week which is interesting because there was heat between them a year or two ago when Hunter declined Angle's request to come back.  Coincidentally, RAW is in Angle's home town tonight....a place where, if he was to return, he'd get an earth shattering response.

When Heyman returned to the WWE, I remember him having an on camera little feud with Vicki Guerrero as to who should be the GM. I can't remember if it was before or after that fact that TNA brought Eric Bischoff  on board and TNA really turned into WCW v2.0 (and not in a good way). I remember wondering what impact Paul would have had if he went to TNA and its success.  Obviously WWE owns the ECW brand now, but if they had made it a clone, with a better budget then ECW originally had, I think it could have done better then what TNA had become

[iso_55]

Never watch TNA. Other than occasionally seeing AJ Styles in a match or two over the years. I always wondered why he wasn't in the WWE all these years. Awesome wrestler & I ain't talking The Miz here. I'll watch ROH over TNA anytime of the day or night.