Wrestling

[The Unknown Poster]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

And are you guys suggesting that the security guard didn't know Gronk was coming into the ring?  Looked like a work to me.

You could tell by the officials that had to grab her and pull her away. 

I agree that Undertaker's retirement deserves a big deal but business is business. They flattened the show to end like that. Personally I would have had Taker go over in his last match. The Roman push clouds everything. 

[Brandon]

10 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Ummm excuse me?  Are you drunk or just wearing your big boy panties and decide playing internet tough guy sounds fun tonight. Come down to my rinky dink promotion and insult me. You're the most condescending know it all on these boards.

What I no longer hold this title??? 

[The Unknown Poster]

9 minutes ago, Brandon said:

What I no longer hold this title??? 

Youve improved a lot. We all have moments when we focus on winning the argument over sharing the discussion. 

Goalies cheap attack was not only unfair but since he was completely wrong it was also laughable. I'll assume there was some make imbibing occurring and hopefully he'll apologize and we can move on. 

What did you think of the show Brandon? Did you watch?

[Atomic]

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I agree that Undertaker's retirement deserves a big deal but business is business. They flattened the show to end like that. Personally I would have had Taker go over in his last match. The Roman push clouds everything. 

I'm not so sure.  Most of the non-smarky reviews for the show are raving about how good it was.  And IMO those are more reflective of the overall success, especially for Wrestlemania which is meant to appeal to a mass audience that only watches WWE once a year or less.  This was the right way for Taker to go out.  I don't see him as a guy who walks away on top... I see him as the old alpha dog battling to the absolute last moment his body will allow, and the new dog puts him down.  Just my opinion.

[Jpan85]

How could you have anything after Taker leaves for the final time could not imagine being in the back trying to go on after that. I loved the whole weekend must have watched 15 hours of live programming.

[Goalie]

I'll apologize but don't think I said anything that wasn't true 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Goalie

[Atomic]

While I agree that TUP has never and likely will never give a positive review to a WWE show, I don't see the point in sniping at each other.  Everyone is going to have a different opinion and that's why we're here.

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I'm not so sure.  Most of the non-smarky reviews for the show are raving about how good it was.  And IMO those are more reflective of the overall success, especially for Wrestlemania which is meant to appeal to a mass audience that only watches WWE once a year or less.  This was the right way for Taker to go out.  I don't see him as a guy who walks away on top... I see him as the old alpha dog battling to the absolute last moment his body will allow, and the new dog puts him down.  Just my opinion.

Honestly I've not seen a single review that  enjoyed the match. Smark or otherwise. And it wasn't a good match. People got emotional about the symbolic retirements which might make the whole thing better in retrospect. 

If some people enjoyed it that's great. I think it would have been fine earlier on the card. 

Its the same as saying miz/cena wasn't bad either but they did nothing. It was fine for its placement but if it was the main it would be pretty much a let down

Seth vs Hunter too. Which was a very well worked match from a psychologically technical stand point but they didn't have the crowd and made effort to adjust to the crowd. 

[Atomic]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Honestly I've not seen a single review that  enjoyed the match. Smark or otherwise. And it wasn't a good match. People got emotional about the symbolic retirements which might make the whole thing better in retrospect. 

If some people enjoyed it that's great. I think it would have been fine earlier on the card. 

Its the same as saying miz/cena wasn't bad either but they did nothing. It was fine for its placement but if it was the main it would be pretty much a let down

Seth vs Hunter too. Which was a very well worked match from a psychologically technical stand point but they didn't have the crowd and made effort to adjust to the crowd. 

Sorry I meant the show in general is receiving very positive reviews, not just Taker/Reigns.

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, Goalie said:

I'll apologize but don't think I said anything that wasn't true 

That's not an apology then. You insulted me. You ridiculed my involvement in professional wrestling. You attempted to undermine my knowledge of the business (which just factually is far greater than yours partially due to being in it for nearly  16 years). 

So if you don't think your cheap attack was uncalled for then don't provide a token apology. We can let stand as an example of your lack of character. 

And to reiterate I don't ever say "hey im in the business so I know better than you" 

I often agree with others opinions.  I do have a unique perspective because of my involvement. I'm a booker. I know about crafting angles and matches. I've worked with some huge names and learned from them.  

If my knowledge and experience doesn't mean anything then the fact you've never done any of it would effectively push your opinions into the negative of meaning

That was my point. Anyway learned a bit about you. Can now move on. Feel free to expand on your opinion that roman vs Taker was so good because Taker wanted to go out on his back or something...

[The Unknown Poster]

7 minutes ago, Atomic said:

While I agree that TUP has never and likely will never give a positive review to a WWE show, I don't see the point in sniping at each other.  Everyone is going to have a different opinion and that's why we're here.

I don't think this is true. I've liked many WWE events. I've actually been defending the Shane vs AJ booking all over.  

In general I'm not a fan of WWE booking. But they have a specific method to how they book. So it's easy to like or dislike. It's not like some shows are way better or way worse. It's generally all the same. 

My review I posted was more positive than negative. It would be the greatest show of all time if they could do a 7 hour show and have no negatives. 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Sorry I meant the show in general is receiving very positive reviews, not just Taker/Reigns.

Oh yes that's true. It wasn't a bad show. It was historic for the Taker thing (if he stays retired - he told Vince he was done after Brock and Shane too) and the Hardy's. 

Seth vs Hunter is a good example of tjenshow as a whole.  If a young trainee wanted to watch a match to learn from, that's a good choice. Hunter is very very very good at working his matches from a psychology stand point. And her the crowd didn't care and it was too long. And the finish was hokey. 

[Goalie]

Taker vs Roman was awful. It was bad.. botchamania. I never said I liked it... I understand why they did it. I actually thought it was the worst match of the night by far... 

It was terrible but taker is old school and gives back. Reigns winning was obvious. I hated the match but because it appears to be takers last... you can't have a match go on after it because who could follow taker retiring. Reigns winning is irrelevant.  It's about taker retiring.  And I guess he was OK going out putting over the younger reigns. Reigns needs to go heel tonight. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Goalie

[Atomic]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I don't think this is true. I've liked many WWE events. I've actually been defending the Shane vs AJ booking all over.  

In general I'm not a fan of WWE booking. But they have a specific method to how they book. So it's easy to like or dislike. It's not like some shows are way better or way worse. It's generally all the same. 

My review I posted was more positive than negative. It would be the greatest show of all time if they could do a 7 hour show and have no negatives. 

Well OK but I guess I just don't this as positive:

Quote

Vince has truly lost it

Show was a big meh

....so if you were trying to be positive, this would be why it came off as the opposite.

[The Unknown Poster]

21 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

How could you have anything after Taker leaves for the final time could not imagine being in the back trying to go on after that. I loved the whole weekend must have watched 15 hours of live programming.

Well two ways. One you don't do the leaving of the gear in the ring. You do it on raw when far more people would be watching. 

Or you have undertake go over on a better opponent so the match is better and the whole thing isn't a downer.  

I just think they sacrificed too much just for that visual. 

[Goalie]

Outside of the reigns taker botch fest and Orton beating Wyatt... it was a good show 

[Goalie]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Well two ways. One you don't do the leaving of the gear in the ring. You do it on raw when far more people would be watching. 

Or you have undertake go over on a better opponent so the match is better and the whole thing isn't a downer.  

I just think they sacrificed too much just for that visual. 

I'd agree taker needed a styles or even Cena to carry him to a better match.  Reigns couldn't do it 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

Well OK but I guess I just don't this as positive:

....so if you were trying to be positive, this would be why it came off as the opposite.

Show was a big meh. That was my initial reaction as soon as it was over. Then I got to a computer and went through some more details. 

WWE is very good at producing shows. But they are very formulaic. It's when they step outside their little box that they are better. But they rarely do that. 

I know it seems backhanded. But this was wrestlemania. It needed to be better. It was meh. If it was three hours maybe it's a thumbs up. 

[Jpan85]

Just to play devils advocate. That's the way the character of the Undertaker should go out. He was not able to rise again. Winning to me makes no sense since he still has the ability rise again and fight on.  But I am just a fan.

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Taker vs Roman was awful. It was bad.. botchamania. I never said I liked it... I understand why they did it. I actually thought it was the worst match of the night by far... 

It was terrible but taker is old school and gives back. Reigns winning was obvious. I hated the match but because it appears to be takers last... you can't have a match go on after it because who could follow taker retiring. Reigns winning is irrelevant.  It's about taker retiring.  And I guess he was OK going out putting over the younger reigns. Reigns needs to go heel tonight. 

Taker does what he's told. Vince's call. It was originally Taker vs Cena. Which is the big money match. 

But Vince wanted Taker to put over Roman in his insane obsession with making roman into the new cena. So he had to do it now or risk never doing it. 

Taker lost to Brock for the same reason. Vince thought it was takers last match so had Brock win. 

[Atomic]

1 minute ago, Jpan85 said:

Just to play devils advocate. That's the way the character of the Undertaker should go out. He was not able to rise again. Winning to me makes no sense since he still has the ability rise again and fight on.  But I am just a fan.

100% agree.  This is the way that makes the most sense to me.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Jpan85 said:

Just to play devils advocate. That's the way the character of the Undertaker should go out. He was not able to rise again. Winning to me makes no sense since he still has the ability rise again and fight on.  But I am just a fan.

I think most fans would prefer him going out on top. You're point is certainly relevant though. It's how it's generally supposed to go. 

I read one review that I thought nailed it for a lot of people. Essentially said the idea that Roman really didn't have much trouble and was more annoyed that taker didn't just stay down seemed like a "jobber" way for Taker to lose. It didn't come across like Taker was finally beaten by the younger dog. 

Him losing to Brock was far better. Had he lost to hunter or HBK, far better. But they're all better workers than roman and roman isn't that over. I think that's the big issue. Roman was the wrong guy. 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

100% agree.  This is the way that makes the most sense to me.

Sure. It's fine. But you end wm with a lousy match and a huge downer. And it doesn't nothing for roman anyway. 

So not the wrong idea. Just the wrong guy at the wrong time.  

[sweep the leg]

I also liked the way Taker went out. Trying to get up and not being able to was great imo.

[sweep the leg]

One thing I think they should do is cut down on re-telling the storyline before every match. They can give a little background for people that don't know, but it was way too much imo.