Daniel Bryan? I don't get it...

[RVDgurl]

While it's easy for Daniel Bryan supporters to simply claim that this is just merely my opinion...it's also just simply common sense.

Just because the guy won a title already doesn't mean that I have to like him. As I've explained, Rey Mysterio Jr. was given the World Title and my head was spinning in circles for quite some time.

Who one likes and dislikes is always a matter of opinion. We all watch wrestling for different reasons and what draws you to a particular wrestler may be vastly different from what draws me. You don't ever have to like Daniel Bryan, no matter how many titles he may accumulate. That doesn't change the fact that many people do like him, myself included.

Do I want "big roided meat bags" wrestling each other? Not necessarily. I'd rather have somebody with a good personality and charisma. Now Bret Hart I could understand. His personality wasn't the greatest...but he was a good technical wrestler with great ring attire, great theme song, cool shades, etc. So at least there were elements of why he became popular and successful. Daniel Bryan coming down to the theme song of Bonanza is basically a slap in the face to wrestling as a whole. Anything and everything that used to represent the glory days of wrestling and entertainment has been thrown out the window in favor of mediocrity and comedy relief.

This is a great example of opinion. I agree that Bret Hart was good because he was skilled in the ring, but I think his ring attire sucked and his shades were cheesy. Those elements of his character did nothing to draw my attention.

But when you start taking away the element of the "build up" of the match and rely solely on just the match itself...it becomes infinitely more boring. Personal opinion? Not really...because it's common sense. It's as if movies in the theater just showed the ending to all of the movies. I'm sure there would be some people who loved the idea...but it just takes away a lot of the whole element of it all. The people who liked the idea could simply say "well you guys liking to watch the whole movie thinking it's much better is just your opinion" Is it? Or is it just common sense?

Your idea of common sense is flawed. Again, you don't have to like Daniel Bryan but I can't wrap my head around why you are so down on him. He is one of the best workers of his generation and he DOES have a personality. He had some of the best segments in recent WWE history during his fued with Michael Cole. How you were not entertained by those, I will never understand- but that's your opinion.

I think Daniel Bryan is the best wrestler in the business today and if I could pick only 1 guy to watch- it would be him. On a roster of larger than life muscleheads, Bryan sticks out and his character is easy to relate to. I think that says something for his personality as well. Open your mind a little, you mind find that he isn't so bad.

 

[Trance Metaphor]

Dude, no one is here to convince you to enjoy Daniel Bryan. If all of those ROH matches and his debut on WWE NXT doesn't surmount to your enjoyment of DB, then that's it plain and simple. You seem to have this unusual condescending perception of Bryan Danielson fans being shallow-minded when all you're doing is preaching about the greatness of Hulk Hogan and past wrestlers we already know have set the foundations. Just because people like Daniel Bryan doesn't mean they're discrediting what wrestlers of the past did. More power to you if you prefer tradition and old school wrestling, but don't act like people who prefer the wrestling aspect a bit more than promos/mic work or sports entertainment are completely negligent.

And about Rey Mysterio being World Heavyweight Champion? Weight classes in pro wrestling don't make sense. If Rey Mysterio wasn't World Heavyweight Champion, it would still technically mean he was WORLD Cruiserweight Champion, which means he'd still be a former World Champion.

 

[Freakinflax]

Savage "had to" practice his matches through the course of the week and that's a bad thing? Since when? He was part of the greatest match of all time...so automatically...whatever he does or did should be copied based on that alone. It's just common sense.

Of course it's a bad thing. You were comparing Danielson of today with workers of the past, and including Savage isn't a good comparison because he had to practice "the greatest match of all time" multiple times the week before Wrestlemania, so that match is automatically always going to be a 9/10 due to that fact. That was at a time when people like Ric Flair and Ricky Steamboat were working 60 minute draws and coming up with new matches every night, and Savage has to practice the match his matches with both individuals. This is why Savage's peers will never consider him a great worker, so why should we?

Furthurmore, I apologize for ripping on your signature, but from my standpoint, as a guy who loves wrestling for the wrestling (Race, Wahoo, Flair, Steamboat, Sting, Henning, Hart, Bulldog, HBK, Mysterio, Malenko, Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Angle, Ultimo, Styles, Williams, Punk, Benjamin, Danielson), hearing someone say they don't like Danielson when they love Jeff Hardy just seems backwards to me.

 

[natlee75]

I'm glad you brought up Hogan vs. Warrior because it's a great example. I'm going to disagree and say it was a great match. It was the hype, the build, the atmosphere, and the significance that made it great. Without any of that it is a pretty dull match. All the other elements made it great. There's no way to know, but I'd bet anything that if you were a fan during that time you'd look at this match much differently.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I defined "match" as what I see happen from bell to bell. The hype, build, atmosphere, etc. may have made it a great event or at the very least paved the way for it to be a great match, but ultimately the quality of the match itself is determined by the performance by the superstars in the ring from the opening bell to the match ending bell.

Hogan and Warrior are, were and always have been horrible wrestlers from a work perspective. They were sometimes interesting to watch from a "turn off your brain and just enjoy the adrenaline" type of perspective, but when you really examine them, they're really not all that impressive at all.

The two of them couldn't put on a great match if their lives depended on it.

But that's just my definition of match, and it's a textbook, technical definition of it maybe. I see it as "what I see when ten years from now I pop in the disc and skip to that chapter," and from a realistic perspective that's exactly what "a match" is.

I can see your point and your perspective, but I think you're using way too loose a definition of "match" here.

As far as whether I'd like that match if I were a fan at the time... I would have been 16 years old at the time and even though I liked certain "circus" aspects of WWF at the time I never liked Hogan. I wasn't really keen on the whole "All American superhero" gimmick. I sometimes liked Warrior only because it was funny to watch him run down to the ring and shake the ropes around and then jog in place before delivering his finisher. And his promos were so wacky and incoherent even then that it was fun just to listen to how overdone they were.

It's kind of like with John Cena right now. He's the Hogan of this era and pushed in a similar fashion - they try to make it look a little more realistic, but really he's doing a version of the same stuff they did with Hogan. I don't care much for Cena's gimmick at all. I respect his dedication to the business. I respect the love he puts into everything he does as an employee of the company. I'm not really a big fan of the Cena character, though, just like I wasn't a fan of the Hogan character.

 

[natlee75]

Not really. I value every part of professional wrestling. The majority of fans who like guys like Bryan Danielson and Chris Benoit, simply don't. They like only one aspect of professional wrestling.

That may be true. Or those people who disagree with you may not share your opinion of Mr. Danielson's abilities.

There's a difference. I look at the big picture...others look at the small picture. I'm not saying that my overall outlook is always right...but I look at everything...not just a one dimensional point of view.

Again, you may be right, but you also may be wrong. You're still trying to centralize yourself and come off as if you're doing "the right thing" by saying things like "one dimensional."

You're still just voicing an opinion about Mr. Danielson just like everyone else here is doing. You don't have a greater perspective. You don't have more common sense. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

I agree with your opinion about Danielson, but I don't agree with your strategy in defending it.

I never said that it did. In fact, I said I'm sure that he is a good in-ring talent. But again, I like the whole package...if the guy can only flip flop around the ring and nothing else...stick him in the mid-card area. Many successful wrestlers were mid-carders for their entire careers. Nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately for Danielson, a lot of them were much better than him (personality wise).

Maybe he doesn't ever get out of the midcard. There's no current indication that he will progress in the near future. So why all the dismay over him? That he's so popular with the IWC and that he's getting such a great reaction from the live audience shouldn't be a problem. Santino gets mucho crowd reaction - much more than Danielson does - but he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Of course, Bret Hart was also nothing more than a complete in-ring package much like Danielson is right now. When they finally decided to let Hart have a go at a singles career, he SUCKED on the mic... there was a reason why it was always the ticking time bomb speaking for the Foundation.

One could even argue that Bret never really became anything more than decent on the stick yet he's one of the most celebrated wrestlers of all time. And I honestly don't think pink tights and a kick ass guitar riff contributed all that much to that.

That is why they call it the HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP...because it's for the HEAVYWEIGHTS. I think if anybody has a bias against any type of wrestler...it's you guys. I'm only looking for tradition here...and of course I'd like to sprinkle in a little bit of personality in there too. Rey Mysterio Jr. winning the HEAVYWEIGHT Championship just doesn't make any sense...plain and simply. COMMON SENSE.

There's no more Cruiserweight or Light Heavyweight division and that didn't adhere to boxing or "real" sports, anyway.

Further, it's not referred to as "Heavyweight Championship" but rather "World Heavyweight Championship" and "WWE Championship" (depending on which one you're referring to). WWF was already referring to it as just the "WWF Championship" by the time I started following wrestling in the early 90's.

If you're really such a stickler for that then you should be arguing for the return of the light heavyweight or cruiserweight division since by the "heavyweight" definition many wrestlers could even't vie for the Intercontinental or U.S. titles which are as technically Heavyweight championships as the top titles.

Again, there's nothing common sense about your argument. You keep trying to claim this, yet all you offer in support is, once again, your opinion and nothing but your opinion.

I mean I guess so...and everybody backing this guy is living proof. But good personality is usually universal. Sure there are specifics that each enjoy...but more often than not "good" personality is spotted by everyone.

"Good" is by definition subjective and therefore cannot be universal. The best you can hope for is that the majority of people agree or disagree with a particular adjective.

See, now I liked The Rock...and I could understand him being a Heavyweight Champion...but what I liked about him was that I loved to hate him. I realized that he had the goods but some of the things he said were kind of corny and such...and around the time of his success, I was watching WCW anyway because it was far better at that time (not just according to me, ratings wise as well)

It's interesting that you immediately "defend" your opinion of WCW vs. WWF during the Monday Night Wars by citing ratings, which are just a measure of popularity, when your whole argument is that Danielson is somehow deficient in some way despite his popularity.

"I like WCW and its ratings were higher so that means it was better" and "Danielson is very popular but he still sucks because I don't like him" don't really match up.

Hogan didn't have to wrestle that well...he had the charisma and personality (regardless of what you thought of his boring promos).

I must have touched a nerve there, LOL.

First of all, I didn't say that his promos were boring. I said that his promos - and those of any of the beefcake superhero types of the time - were just too much. I simply didn't think they were anything special because I didn't think the character was anything special.

Second, I believe I mentioned that I realized why people liked him.

He represented a superhero type figure in wrestling. Whether it was his mustache, his horseshoe haircut, his red and yellow, his theme song, whatever it was...he was able to grab everyone's attention.

He wasn't anything special earlier in his career. It wasn't until Vince McMahon himself decided that Hogan was going to be the top dog that any of that happened. That's not to say that Hogan didn't have the charisma to pull it off - it would have been a disaster if he didn't - but the most important step was that Vince decided to hand him the ball. If Vince hadn't done that, nobody would have ever known how charismatic Hogan was.

Currently, Danielson hasn't been given that opportunity, really. Maybe he doesn't deserve it. Who knows? But the other posters here have a point that he did show quite a personality in NXT. In other words, just because we haven't seen it on the main show doesn't mean it isn't there. I mean, hell, a lot of the less attractive women wrestlers out there are actually pretty damn good in the ring but solely judging by what we see on RAW and Smackdown they all suck.

And he didn't need great moves in the ring because he had the "Hulk-Up" which made the fans go wild. The SHOW was the entertainment. You didn't need flip flopping around the ring. Macho Man was great! His voice was part of grabbing everyone's attention too. The way he perched on the top rope...his wrestling attire, everything about him. Nash was different than those guys where he was bigger and had more of a "brawler" image...and his personality was more straight forward and funny and intimidating.

And you loved all that and that's great and wonderful for you. Maybe that's what the average wrestling fan in those days liked. It's not what they like anymore, though. Well, maybe, considering that Triple H is supposed to be so great when he's not really much of a worker.

Really, though, the argument is getting kind of pointless since it's just going to be one opinion versus another. It reminds me a bit of politics. The party who loses power is always complaining about how everything has gone to s*** with the other side in power.

What is "good" and "popular" in wrestling has shifted since the days of Hogan and Savage, and the best thing you can probably do right now is what you offered in the beginning of the thread, which is to just tune out since you obviously don't enjoy what's going on anymore.

I guess you had to be around with Hogan to appreciate it. No he wasn't a wrestling guru but he knew how to become the best there ever was somehow.

Hogan was still around and in power when I started watching. I've seen many of his promos from the past and I've seen all his PPV matches. Again, that kind of character simply wasn't my cup of tea. It's really that simple.

And as far as being the best there ever was... well, a lot of people would argue for guys like Flair, Michaels, Hart, Austin, Rock, etc. because in the end it's just another one of those darned opinions.

I guess? But there's much more than that as well. As I've explained before and above.

Watching old tapes of what happened and actually living through it while it happened are two totally different things. Apples and Oranges.

Wrong usage of the phrase.

Regardless of whether I "lived it" or just watched archives doesn't change the fact that I never liked that kind of character. You really have to stop trying to enforce your opinion and views on other people. You like Hogan, Savage, Warrior, and those circus-y, fantasy, larger-than-life, superhero beefcake characters. Many others did as well. Many others didn't. I didn't. I don't. End of story.

Warrior is a perfect example of somebody with barely any in-ring talent at all...but entertaining nonetheless. He literally looked like a comic book superhero with all these vibrant colors, face paint, tassles dangling down, and looking as if he were literally cut from stone. His entrance music was just extraordinary and got everybody's adrenaline pumping...it was almost like he didn't need to wrestle well. He would get jumped or beat up and "hulk up" by shaking the ropes...and the crowd would go nuts. It was great.

I enjoyed his entrance. I found his attire and make up interesting. I found his promos humorous (laughing *at* him and not with him). However, he was God awful in the ring JUST LIKE HOGAN. Savage was better than both of them, but still nothing special.

But the whole superhero thing just doesn't do it for me. I remember watching when Warrior came back and squashed Hunter Hearst Helmsley and thinking "WTF just happened?" And I *hated* Helmsley and I kinda sorta liked Warrior a little bit back in the day.

I guess, but you almost have to because going back and watching any other match, you don't get to see the build-up of the match at all...so the only thing you can really evaluate is the match itself.

And that's all I really need to do. I know that there's more to the industry of wrestling than just the matches themselves, but the match is the match. Build up, story, etc. may make for a better *event* but any match - bell to bell - with Hogan and Warrior in it is going to suck from a work perspective.

Listen, I enjoy the feuds, the soap opera, etc. as much as you do. When I switch on Raw every week, it's because I want to hear The Miz speak. I want to hear Edge speak. However, ultimately I'm going to rate wrestlers by their abilities in the ring. I don't give a crap if The Great Khali is the funniest guy out there - he sucks in the ring and that makes him hard to support.

Perhaps? But I appreciate the whole package as I've said. I might weigh personality and build up a little more than the match...but that's simply because the build up and personality are necessary to represent far more time than just the 20 minute match.

I completely understand where you're coming from. I just see judge things differently. Everything - in and out of the ring - is all important to me, but I'm not going to fault Danielson for not being The Miz on the mic anymore than you're going to fault Hogan for being Khali in the ring.

It seems that all you really need is the showmanship part and not the wrestling talent part at all. You admit that Hogan and Warrior couldn't put on a good technical match to save their lives but that's all okay because they knew how to scream and posture well enough to get you pumped up, but then turn around and kill Danielson and Benoit for having poor showmanship even though they could outwork almost any wrestler in the business today or in the past.

The whole point of something being "common sense" is that there shouldn't be any explanation. It should be common knowledge. Rating something based on several factors (everything) is always better than rating something based on one single factor (in-ring ability). THAT, is common sense.

I am truly baffled by how you define and associate things.

I'm going to try to explain it ONE LAST TIME. These are OPINIONS. Nothing more, nothing less. YOUR OPINION IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT OR BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE'S.

Stop trying to position yourself as the end all, be all judge on what's good and what's not. Your opinion is valid, sensible and appropriate for no one but YOU.

That you choose to rate a performer on something that's important to you but not important to someone else doesn't somehow make your opinion more valid. That you watched wrestling in the 80's and 90's and that you think those were the good old days when wrestling was pure and traditional and more than just flip flopping in the ring or whatever you see it as now is 100% irrelevant to anyone but you.

Common sense is not lighting a match around spilt fuel, not cutting yourself open with a knife, not mouthing off to someone who has a gun to your head, not driving when you're drunk.

Common sense has NOTHING - I repeat NOTHING - to do with whether a professional wrestler is good or not based on in-ring ability, charisma or anything else.

Again, I rate the person based on several factors. Most of people seem to be rating wrestlings based on one factor only, in-ring ability and that's it. That's not my opinion. That's just somebody being more accurate with something than others plain and simply.

No, it's not. This isn't an official competition with rules in which you have to rate according to specific criteria. There are no universal rules here. Each individual person judges for themselves what aspects are important.

Like I said before, you're acting like one of those elitist film snobs who think that every movie has to be judged by the same criteria. No Country For Old Men isn't better than Independence Day which isn't better than Dude Where's My Car which isn't better than The Care Bears movie. Every person has their own criteria about what makes a good movie. Every wrestling fan has their own criteria about what makes a good wrestler.

If you think charisma is important, that's great. Someone else who doesn't couldn't care less.

Never said that it should...but they shouldn't dismiss it entirely because they feel the opposite. That's my point. I don't dismiss the in-ring ability entirely. Others seem to dismiss the personality element entirely though. That's the difference here.

Except that you did dismiss the in-ring ability. It's actually pretty hypocritical. As I mentioned before, you had no problem with Hogan's utter lack of inability to wrestle because you loved his personality and charisma so much. You put that one aspect of "wrestling" on a pedestal and couldn't care less about the other aspect. Yet when it comes to Danielson who is the exact opposite - not much of a personality but one of the best in-ring performers in history - you go on about the lack.

It's all moot in the end, though, because once again what you consider important is not what anyone or everyone considers important. That Danielson doesn't measure up to your standards doesn't mean that he doesn't measure up to anyone else's. And your standards are no better or worse than anyone else's.

 

[DanielJames]

the man could wrestle, to put it in a nice and simple way.

but if you really don't get it..
the man weighs less then 200 pounds, doesn't have a six pack, and is not an ass kisser, so there was a good reason he had to spend so much time in the indies. being that small you usually have to become a high flying lower midcarder for life, but he chose to learn submissions with a mix of everything else, which gave him the underground nickname of the best wrestler in the world. he is not your typical WWE superstar in the slightest and the everyday man can relate to him. the fact that he made and got to come out on top in a fued with the miz it's obvious they have big plans for him.

hes jus a feel good story

 

[Vega]

Can somebody please tell me what's so special about Daniel Bryan or Brian Daniels or whatever the hell he's called these days?

Well, regarding technical ability, he's a Top Ten lock in wrestlers currently active and I'd even say Top 20 ever. He has a tremendous work ethic, can wrestle totally different styles and caters to a wide audience. Despite not even being 30, he has more experience than most of WWE's roster and is a very save guy to work with. He is friendly, trustworthy and very agile in the ring. He has proven to steadily pull out great matches and arguably was in the best match of the night at all WWE PPV's he participated in (which is only three, but I'm just saying). Additionally, he even has a nice amount of charisma.

Just when I thought I've seen a mass amount of boring wrestlers work their way into the business...Daniel Bryan comes in. Not that he's more boring than the others...but I just don't understand how some of you fans rate these guys...it's mind boggling.

I mean the guy has a boring name, he wears boring wrestling attire, his moves are mediocre, and he comes out to the theme song from Bonanza??

It's not even close to Bonanza, it's Ride Of The Valkyries by Wagner. You know who came out to classical themes before him? Guys like Flair or Savage. Not too bad predecessors I must say.

His moveset is boring, but you say you miss the wrestlers of the older generation? I mean, an agile style, suicide dives, missile dropkicks, turnbuckle somersaults and a wide arsenal of submissions for example are boring? I don't know what you expect, but he was more entertaining than any other wrestler at the last PPV's I would say. Just rewatch the main event of SummerSlam - he made that match great. How can you call that boring?

Yes, the name is bad in my opinion, Bryan Daniels - in regards to his former trainer Shawn Michaels - would've been better in my opinion. The attire is okay, but it could be better and the WWE limits their wrestler's moves. So that's nothing you can blame him for or which would take away from his skills.

And he certainly HAS charisma and can talk. I don't know what it is, but it seems like people think a wrestler has no charisma when he is a great technician.
I mean, for example just watch this NXT promo and say it was bland or that most other wrestlers could've done that better. He had other great stuff in the past, this is just a WWE (equal: toned down) excerpt:

[youtube]i1vQ6vJX7Ek[/youtube]

THIS is what wrestling fans enjoy these days?? The WWE expelled this guy for breaking one of their rules but rushed him back for THIS??

I'm sorry...but I was a huge wrestling fan in the 80's and 90's and early 2000's and I continuously try to get back into it recently but then I come across things like this.

When cruiserweights like Rey Mysterio Jr. are winning the world championship title and "Daniel Bryan" is one of the most popular stars in wrestling...I think it's time to retire from watching it and it's time to stop giving it another chance.

Your choice.

But either way...I still have no idea what's so great about this guy. And I don't think I ever will...

Well, I think he has no flaws besides his size and maybe his average-man look, but even that can be used in favor if done right.

 

[Optimist Prime]

That may be true. Or those people who disagree with you may not share your opinion of Mr. Danielson's abilities.

I'm going to go with the former on that one because it makes a lot more sense. When you go to buy a car and you're looking up reviews on it...would you rather look at a review of the ENTIRE car or would you rather a view of just the interior design? It's common sense that evaluating somebody entirely and not just one dimensionally, makes more sense and is taken more seriously. This isn't me just saying this...it's just the way it is.

Again, you may be right, but you also may be wrong. You're still trying to centralize yourself and come off as if you're doing "the right thing" by saying things like "one dimensional."

How could you possibly know for sure what I'm "doing"? Your entire argument is how I don't know anything and that everything is my own opinion yet you're somehow able to know everything about me in the same breath just by an internet discussion about a boring wrestler.

You're still just voicing an opinion about Mr. Danielson just like everyone else here is doing. You don't have a greater perspective. You don't have more common sense. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

This isn't the Big Lebowski here. In court, no defense attorney ever responds with "well that's just your opinion, mannn" Because sometimes there is just right and wrong. There is an analysis of the big picture and there is an analysis of the small picture. Regardless of opinions, say you remove that factor, the analysis of the big picture is more accurate and precise than the analysis of the one-dimensional small picture. That's just the way it is. Therefore, an opinion using a larger picture is more valid than an opinion strictly focusing on one dimension.

I agree with your opinion about Danielson, but I don't agree with your strategy in defending it.

My goal wasn't to get you to agree with me on anything. I simply asked a question and nobody was able to logically answer it.

Maybe he doesn't ever get out of the midcard. There's no current indication that he will progress in the near future. So why all the dismay over him? That he's so popular with the IWC and that he's getting such a great reaction from the live audience shouldn't be a problem. Santino gets mucho crowd reaction - much more than Danielson does - but he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

And I hope you're right...but the fact that Rey Mysterio and Chris Benoit were World HEAVYWEIGHT Champions, it seems as though he'll be putting people to sleep with the belt over his shoulder soon enough.

Of course, Bret Hart was also nothing more than a complete in-ring package much like Danielson is right now. When they finally decided to let Hart have a go at a singles career, he SUCKED on the mic... there was a reason why it was always the ticking time bomb speaking for the Foundation.

Mr. Perfect was around at the same time as Bret Hart and had more personality and charisma in his pinky than Bret Hart did in his whole body. I would even say that Curt Hennig was a much better technical wrestler as well and that's not really opinion...go back and watch the tapes. Mr. Perfect had the bland blue and black while Hart had the "cooler" intro, more colorful ring attire, shades, and legacy behind him...so he became the face and Hennig remained where he was. It's not a coincidence. Even if you claim that Bret Hart WAS better than Hennig, he wasn't that much better to where Hennig's infinitely better personality is overlooked because of it. There is more to it than that. It's obvious.

There's no more Cruiserweight or Light Heavyweight division and that didn't adhere to boxing or "real" sports, anyway.

Further, it's not referred to as "Heavyweight Championship" but rather "World Heavyweight Championship" and "WWE Championship" (depending on which one you're referring to). WWF was already referring to it as just the "WWF Championship" by the time I started following wrestling in the early 90's.

If you're really such a stickler for that then you should be arguing for the return of the light heavyweight or cruiserweight division since by the "heavyweight" definition many wrestlers could even't vie for the Intercontinental or U.S. titles which are as technically Heavyweight championships as the top titles.

Again, there's nothing common sense about your argument. You keep trying to claim this, yet all you offer in support is, once again, your opinion and nothing but your opinion.

"My opinion" is that it looks ridiculous having a 5 foot 140 pound midget win the World HEAVYWEIGHT Championship? Is it really just my opinion? Cmon, now I think you're just trying to disagree with me for the spite of it. That's like giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Adolph Hitler. They're the antethesis of one another.

It's interesting that you immediately "defend" your opinion of WCW vs. WWF during the Monday Night Wars by citing ratings, which are just a measure of popularity, when your whole argument is that Danielson is somehow deficient in some way despite his popularity.

"I like WCW and its ratings were higher so that means it was better" and "Danielson is very popular but he still sucks because I don't like him" don't really match up.

Actually, the only reason I put that there is specifically for you...I personally don't care about ratings or what other people like. The only reason I brought it up is because you continuously bring up the Big Lebowski "Well that's just your opinion, mannn" response...so I sarcastically added that in there for you. I couldn't care less about it.

First of all, I didn't say that his promos were boring. I said that his promos - and those of any of the beefcake superhero types of the time - were just too much. I simply didn't think they were anything special because I didn't think the character was anything special.

"Well that's just your opinion, mannn" lol. No, but you've even admitted that you didn't watch these while they were happening and just kind of bought or watched old films on youtube and made up your mind based on that.

He wasn't anything special earlier in his career. It wasn't until Vince McMahon himself decided that Hogan was going to be the top dog that any of that happened. That's not to say that Hogan didn't have the charisma to pull it off - it would have been a disaster if he didn't - but the most important step was that Vince decided to hand him the ball. If Vince hadn't done that, nobody would have ever known how charismatic Hogan was.

Actually, it was Hulk Hogan's cameo appearance in the hugely popular Rocky 3 that started his rise. After that, fans cheered for him like crazy because never before had a wrestler really been in a movie...let alone a box office smash hit. From there, McMahon and Hogan (together) came up with their idea...which is mainly why Hogan owns his own name and his likeness of his character and Vince McMahon doesn't. Mainly because Hogan came up with most of it...and McMahon agreed to it and agreed to back it with his new marketing machine.

Currently, Danielson hasn't been given that opportunity, really. Maybe he doesn't deserve it. Who knows? But the other posters here have a point that he did show quite a personality in NXT. In other words, just because we haven't seen it on the main show doesn't mean it isn't there. I mean, hell, a lot of the less attractive women wrestlers out there are actually pretty damn good in the ring but solely judging by what we see on RAW and Smackdown they all suck.

But you just said that opinions on people's personalities were subjective and just merely opinions...so why would anybody ask or care about anybody elses opinion EVER if that's the case?

Really, though, the argument is getting kind of pointless since it's just going to be one opinion versus another. It reminds me a bit of politics. The party who loses power is always complaining about how everything has gone to s*** with the other side in power.

It's only getting pointless because I'm making a lot of sense and it's becoming harder and harder for you to disagree with me solely out of spite LOL

What is "good" and "popular" in wrestling has shifted since the days of Hogan and Savage, and the best thing you can probably do right now is what you offered in the beginning of the thread, which is to just tune out since you obviously don't enjoy what's going on anymore.

Good idea...because wrestling certainly isn't even remotely as entertaining as it used to be. They pretty much got rid of the gimmicks entirely, no more cool names, no more cool characters, no more promos, no more personality...they substituted all of this for boring names, boring ring attire, washing machine sounding rock theme music that all sound the same, and zero personality.

How that is BETTER than what was there previously? I will never understand.

That's like me breaking up with my girlfriend to date a blow up doll. Everybody is pleading with me and asking me why...what was wrong with your girlfriend and what's so great about this blow up doll? Nobody can make any sense of it...but thanks to you I'll just tell them that it's just their opinion, mannn LOL

Hogan was still around and in power when I started watching. I've seen many of his promos from the past and I've seen all his PPV matches. Again, that kind of character simply wasn't my cup of tea. It's really that simple.

And as far as being the best there ever was... well, a lot of people would argue for guys like Flair, Michaels, Hart, Austin, Rock, etc. because in the end it's just another one of those darned opinions.

My grandparents and parents and almost anybody in the world knew and knows who Hulk Hogan is (way before his reality tv show and nonsense). My grandparents and parents and the majority of anybody else has absolutely no idea who Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, or The Rock is. No idea whatsoever.

It's not my opinion...the guy was bigger than the game. He truly was the Babe Ruth of wrestling. He's the greatest face and heel wrestler of all time. Bar none. Nobody was more beloved and more hated than Hulk Hogan. Nobody else can ever say that. That's when you know you're good.

Regardless of whether I "lived it" or just watched archives doesn't change the fact that I never liked that kind of character. You really have to stop trying to enforce your opinion and views on other people. You like Hogan, Savage, Warrior, and those circus-y, fantasy, larger-than-life, superhero beefcake characters. Many others did as well. Many others didn't. I didn't. I don't. End of story.

Not trying to force anything on anybody actually. I was just merely pointing out that you watching old outdated videos amidst an "attitude era" of wrestling that you've been brainwashed to enjoy doesn't do any justice. The difference is I watched wrestling back then WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING and I'm watching wrestling now WHILE IT IS HAPPENING. You are only doing one of those...and then you're watching old film footage taken out of context without any build up afterwards and trying to make sense of it. No shit you're not going to. It's almost impossible to. That's like renting an old movie and starting it at the end and trying to enjoy it. It's not going to happen.

And that's all I really need to do. I know that there's more to the industry of wrestling than just the matches themselves, but the match is the match. Build up, story, etc. may make for a better *event* but any match - bell to bell - with Hogan and Warrior in it is going to suck from a work perspective.

But it didn't suck. To this day when I ask people what their favorite match of all time was...they say Hogan Vs. Warrior at Wrestlemania 6. It was incredible. You had two similar larger-than-life characters...both faces...both title holders...squaring off in the main event of the largest stage in the business for the first time ever. As a kid it was just intense...you didn't know who to root for. The build up and characters were THAT good. The actual "wrestling" didn't have to be great. People just were just so curious as to who was going to win this anxiety driven match they didn't care...they just wanted the answer.

It seems that all you really need is the showmanship part and not the wrestling talent part at all. You admit that Hogan and Warrior couldn't put on a good technical match to save their lives but that's all okay because they knew how to scream and posture well enough to get you pumped up, but then turn around and kill Danielson and Benoit for having poor showmanship even though they could outwork almost any wrestler in the business today or in the past.

Wrestling is scripted. They aren't actually doing these moves out of no where in an actual scheduled MMA style fight where the better guy wins. Essentially, the wrestlers are actors...literally. And if they can't act...but they can do the motions...it's not as entertaining. I mean people can still pretend that it's "real" and there shouldn't be any talking at all or storyline whatsoever and the wrestlers should just put on a Cirque du Soleil performance...but that takes everything away from what it really is and what it's always been.

I'm going to try to explain it ONE LAST TIME. These are OPINIONS. Nothing more, nothing less. YOUR OPINION IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT OR BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE'S.

It automatically is once I start evaluating something using more important factors than somebody else.

Stop trying to position yourself as the end all, be all judge on what's good and what's not. Your opinion is valid, sensible and appropriate for no one but YOU.

Yeah? Well that's like...just your opinion, mannnn LOL

Common sense is not lighting a match around spilt fuel, not cutting yourself open with a knife, not mouthing off to someone who has a gun to your head, not driving when you're drunk.

Common sense has NOTHING - I repeat NOTHING - to do with whether a professional wrestler is good or not based on in-ring ability, charisma or anything else.

Common sense is knowing that evaluating something based on several important factors is BETTER than evaluating something based on a one-dimensional factor.

Like I said before, you're acting like one of those elitist film snobs who think that every movie has to be judged by the same criteria. No Country For Old Men isn't better than Independence Day which isn't better than Dude Where's My Car which isn't better than The Care Bears movie. Every person has their own criteria about what makes a good movie. Every wrestling fan has their own criteria about what makes a good wrestler.

Then what is the point of awards in general if everything is just one specific person's opinion? What's the point? Why have them? Answer me!!

Except that you did dismiss the in-ring ability. It's actually pretty hypocritical. As I mentioned before, you had no problem with Hogan's utter lack of inability to wrestle because you loved his personality and charisma so much. You put that one aspect of "wrestling" on a pedestal and couldn't care less about the other aspect. Yet when it comes to Danielson who is the exact opposite - not much of a personality but one of the best in-ring performers in history - you go on about the lack.

It's not hypocritical at all. I certainly consider in-ring ability as well. The difference is that personality and build ups to matches have the ability (as I've described) to make the "in-ring" ability moot at times. The opposite could not necessarily happen. If Eugene and Santino put on the performance of their lifetime...nobody would care about it. They might whisper "they did some pretty cool stuff there" but nobody would remember it nor brag about it ever. Just the way it is.

It's all moot in the end, though, because once again what you consider important is not what anyone or everyone considers important. That Danielson doesn't measure up to your standards doesn't mean that he doesn't measure up to anyone else's. And your standards are no better or worse than anyone else's.

All I asked was why he was so popular and nobody could give me a straight answer. Some people were telling me that he was US Champion and that's why people should like him solely because of that...others were saying that he's this prodigy in the ring (in which I have yet to see and I've seen him quite a bit since he's been back). Nobody has been able to weigh all of the factors in wrestling and tell me that he's the best based on that. They'll choose one specific dimension only and brag about it...but nothing else.

Basically, I asked a question and nobody can give me a straight logical answer that makes sense.

Period. Simple as that.

 

[daniel bryan mark]

Originally Posted by Optimist Prime
Not really. I value every part of professional wrestling. The majority of fans who like guys like Bryan Danielson and Chris Benoit, simply don't. They like only one aspect of professional wrestling.

Originally Posted by Optimist Prime
Again, I rate the person based on several factors. Most of people seem to be rating wrestlings based on one factor only, in-ring ability and that's it. That's not my opinion. That's just somebody being more accurate with something than others plain and simply.

Really!? Well, that is your "common sense", which is really an OPINION!!! I liked the Rock, Steve Austin, and I don't have a problem with John Cena. I also like Danielson, Benoit(before the incident), and Kaval. So, your "common sense", it turns out, is just an OPINION!!!

Anyway, Daniel Bryan, or his real name Bryan Danielson, is an amazing WRESTLER! Not ENTERTAINER, a WRESTLER! He does have a personality, but WWE limits their superstars. You are probably a John Cena mark. He has personality, but only does 5 or 6 moves(aside from punches and kicks).

 

[Klown_Karnage]

"All I asked was why he was so popular and nobody could give me a straight answer."

Forgive me if I missed something here, but this line in particular stood out to me, Mr. Prime. I have to ask the question: Were you actually reading the responses to your thread? If so, were you paying attention, actually reading them and digesting what they had to say or simply dismissing them because they didn't agree with your opinion? I read through this entire thread and it seems to me that just about every answer was straightforward and well thought-out.

Still, you said you wanted a straight answer as to why Daniel Bryan was so popular among the fans, as I recall. I will give you one straight reason as to why this is so.

He's a sympathetic character. Now, unless you are savvy to the psychology of wrestling (or indeed most forms of entertainment) this may not mean much on the face of it, but it is the basis of nearly every heroic character since the ancient Greeks were putting on plays in masks in an open air theater. Daniel, since he joined the WWE, has been faced with adversity after adversity from his (many would say undeserved) losing streak in NXT up through his various matches up to now. The WWE has set nearly everyone in it (or at least nearly every heel) against him specifically, including one of the announce team. In this way, a viewing populace both in the crowd and at home, most of which spend a large portion of their lives being beaten down themselves in their daily lives, can relate to him. Not only this, but when Daniel wins the "most important" match (such as the one that got him the U.S. Belt and the one that allowed him to defend it) it is even more satisfying for the crowd. This is a game that entertainers of all types play with their audiences. Daniel plays the part well, I have to say. He's very good at selling the "oppressed and fighting back" angle.

In this way, perhaps it is a good thing that his personal charisma is not as big and overblown as, say, the Hulkster or Savage or even Triple H. He's kind of the "little wrestler that could" and like it or not, that story can worm its way into a massive amount of fans just as easily today as it could when that kid's book about a little engine entered our popular culture. How do you think Rey Mysterio got so popular?

In passing, however, I think you're overselling Bryan's popularity a little, at least in terms of where it will get him in the WWE. His title reign is not going to last and, sadly, it is most likely that this is the only title reign he will be able to claim in the WWE. Those who pay attention to the WWE's history in regard to smaller characters (Mysterio being the exception to the rule here) will know that after their initial push, they will be shoved to the back of the midcard, dropped to jobber status, and eventually future endeavored without so much as a "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out", although that last part may take a little while. Remember Jamie Noble? Besides, Bryan's got the U.S. Title, which has about as much prestige these days as the ECW Championship had when it was still around, which is to say only marginally more than one of the female championships.

I'm not trying to convince you to like him. By your statements, you never will and any reasons to do so will fall on deaf ears. I hope, however, that I have provided you with the "straight answer" you were looking for, or at least one possibility.

 

[Optimist Prime]

Really!? Well, that is your "common sense", which is really an OPINION!!! I liked the Rock, Steve Austin, and I don't have a problem with John Cena. I also like Danielson, Benoit(before the incident), and Kaval. So, your "common sense", it turns out, is just an OPINION!!!

No, it isn't. If I evaluate something doing extensive research...evaluating several factors of something in the process and coming to a conclusion...and you only focus on one specific thing and brag about how great it is without even taking a peek at any of the other factors that are important...my evaluation becomes automatically more valid by default.

Anyway, Daniel Bryan, or his real name Bryan Danielson, is an amazing WRESTLER! Not ENTERTAINER, a WRESTLER! He does have a personality, but WWE limits their superstars. You are probably a John Cena mark. He has personality, but only does 5 or 6 moves(aside from punches and kicks).

Daniel Bryan is an amazing WRESTLER? Really? Does he have Olympic Gold Medals like Kurt Angle? Did he win several collegiate tournaments? He is able to put on a good Cirque de Soleil show...without having any lines or needing to use his personality. He's able to produce scripted maneuvers better than the average professional wrestler. I wouldn't say he's an amazing "WRESTLER". He has very good in-ring ability. He does not, however, "wrestle". He performs.

And Klown Karnage,

Thank you. I get that whole aspect of "little engine that could" but I mean Barry Horrowitz was a similar character back in the mid 90's and he didn't receive nearly the same outcry as Bryan Daniels. I'm sure that it plays a role though.

Just sucks that most of these guys have no personality of you would see them being pushed more. John Morrison could be the modern day Shawn Michaels...but he can't speak a lick on the mic. It's a shame.

 

[varney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7YgKsJultY#t=6m48s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8KlrmHwYwQ#t=9m22s

he does have it

i have no idea why you are capitalizing WRESTLER and bringing up greco roman wrestling examples...? what is your logic

he is the best WRESTLER when it comes to pro wrestling, who can even argue

we the IWC have the ability to watch mostly any match from any company from any country through the internet, and a lot of us have watched wrestling from japan, europe, american indies, wwe, etc......we have all this material to look at and criticize and judge yet the IWC still picks bryan danielson as the best wrestler in the world, how can you argue you that

how can you argue the majority of the iwc is wrong when we have the means to watch so many wrestlers from so many companies

we watched, we reviewed, and we still choose bryan danielson as our "best wrestler in the world"

so the man doesn't have the swagger of the rock, the intensity of benoit, or the mic skills of cm punk - the man can put on a more athletic entertaining match then any of them in their prime (maybe except benoit) - if you're entertained by the soap opera portion of Raw then danielson isn't your guy, if you're entertained by the sportsmanship and the ART of professional wrestling i.e. WHAT SELLS PPV's then bryan danielson is the man

 

[Optimist Prime]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7YgKsJultY#t=6m48s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8KlrmHwYwQ#t=9m22s

he does have it

i have no idea why you are capitalizing WRESTLER and bringing up greco roman wrestling examples...? what is your logic

he is the best WRESTLER when it comes to pro wrestling, who can even argue

we the IWC have the ability to watch mostly any match from any company from any country through the internet, and a lot of us have watched wrestling from japan, europe, american indies, wwe, etc......we have all this material to look at and criticize and judge yet the IWC still picks bryan danielson as the best wrestler in the world, how can you argue you that

how can you argue the majority of the iwc is wrong when we have the means to watch so many wrestlers from so many companies

we watched, we reviewed, and we still choose bryan danielson as our "best wrestler in the world"

so the man doesn't have the swagger of the rock, the intensity of benoit, or the mic skills of cm punk - the man can put on a more athletic entertaining match then any of them in their prime (maybe except benoit) - if you're entertained by the soap opera portion of Raw then danielson isn't your guy, if you're entertained by the sportsmanship and the ART of professional wrestling i.e. WHAT SELLS PPV's then bryan danielson is the man

The IWC, to me, is meaningless. I don't care if they say that Michael Cole is the best wrestler ever because they watched a youtube video of him wrestling on his trampolene with his kids in his backyard. That doesn't mean jack squat to me.

It's all art. The whole package is art. Just flip flopping and giving different variations of the arm bar inside the ring isn't the only "art" there is. Being good with the mic is art. Being able to create a good build-up to the match is art. Being able to entertain in general is art. The only problem is, the IWC doesn't seem to understand this and only evaluates in-ring ability as if it were a figure skating competition.

The IWC and similar fans seem to have taken the "fun" out of what made professional wrestling so popular in the past and have essentially caused aspiring wrestlers to only focus on their in-ring ability and leave out the very important rest of what was needed to entertain...which is why the majority of wrestlers coming up these days don't have any personality but can give a mean gut-wrench suplex when needed.

We can agree to disagree...but I liked it when wrestling was more than just a ballet competition in the middle of the ring. I liked it when I was entertained from start to finish...from the microphone to the ring. That's all.

 

[varney]

i think your comment about the IWC making aspiring wrestlers only focus on their wresting is way out of line

every aspiring wrestlers ultimate goal should be the wwe, and everyone knows you need mic skills and personality for that, it's not our fault new up and comers don't have it..maybe they should practice more

 

[Optimist Prime]

i think your comment about the IWC making aspiring wrestlers only focus on their wresting is way out of line

every aspiring wrestlers ultimate goal should be the wwe, and everyone knows you need mic skills and personality for that, it's not our fault new up and comers don't have it..maybe they should practice more

And I emphatically agree with you. They should practice more...but they don't...and a lot of it is because a lot of people are praising them regardless of whether or not they have it. The only difference is...they become flashes in the pan because they lack any and all charisma and fizzle out...thus leaving professional wrestling with quite the conundrum to fix.

 

[Genesis]

I don't get you, how is Daniel Bryan boring? And what's with the stereotypes about him? Bryan does have personality, his American Dragon persona. And BTW sure his theme is kinda strange, but makes him unique. But whatever, I see Daniel Bryan as the next Chris Jericho.

 

[Layorz]

And I emphatically agree with you. They should practice more...but they don't...and a lot of it is because a lot of people are praising them regardless of whether or not they have it. The only difference is...they become flashes in the pan because they lack any and all charisma and fizzle out...thus leaving professional wrestling with quite the conundrum to fix.

I'm sorry, what makes you think that? Do you train with these people daily? How can you possibly know what they do and don't practice? You are making massive assumptions time and time again, dismissing peoples reasonable points as "fan boy" arguments, while all you do is repeatedly say "Daniel Bryan is overrated because I personally think he's crap on the mic"

 

[Vega]

And I emphatically agree with you. They should practice more...but they don't...and a lot of it is because a lot of people are praising them regardless of whether or not they have it. The only difference is...they become flashes in the pan because they lack any and all charisma and fizzle out...thus leaving professional wrestling with quite the conundrum to fix.

So, Daniel Bryan doesn't practice enough? The Danielson that wrestled for ten years all over the worlds before finally signing a big contract, who by choice went to FCW to learn the WWE style more before going into the big business, who trained rookies, who wrestles on about every show he's invited, even in front of 50 people, despite having the reputation of being the best wrestler, who made a lot of indy appearances even while being in the WWE? That Daniel Bryan? I mean, how do you even want to know?

Do you still stand at your point that his ring work his boring?

Do you still stand at your point that he has no personality?

 

[Trance Metaphor]

The IWC, to me, is meaningless. I don't care if they say that Michael Cole is the best wrestler ever because they watched a youtube video of him wrestling on his trampolene with his kids in his backyard. That doesn't mean jack squat to me.

It's all art. The whole package is art. Just flip flopping and giving different variations of the arm bar inside the ring isn't the only "art" there is. Being good with the mic is art. Being able to create a good build-up to the match is art. Being able to entertain in general is art. The only problem is, the IWC doesn't seem to understand this and only evaluates in-ring ability as if it were a figure skating competition.

The IWC and similar fans seem to have taken the "fun" out of what made professional wrestling so popular in the past and have essentially caused aspiring wrestlers to only focus on their in-ring ability and leave out the very important rest of what was needed to entertain...which is why the majority of wrestlers coming up these days don't have any personality but can give a mean gut-wrench suplex when needed.

Are you serious? You nit-pick ONE wrestler in Daniel Bryan to represent the majority of pro wrestling? Have you even watched the WWE? The majority of stars ARE mic workers. There's John Cena whose mic skills overshadow his in-ring abilities. The same goes for The Miz (a perfect example of a top mic worker and promo cutter with average-but-improving in-ring skills). There's Randy Orton who has top tier mic skills, yet uses an average amount of moves. Edge and Triple H are the same in that matter. All of these guys have mic skills, charisma and talent that is emphasized more than their in-ring abilities. The only person(s) that take the fun out of pro wrestling are the ones that have to criticize technical wrestlers that emphasize their wrestling skills over their mic skills, promos and charisma. There's a balance in pro wrestling, but you're too stubborn to realize this. You probably also hate Shelton Benjamin and the rest of the independent wrestlers that don't fit under your bill. Daniel Bryan IS entertaining. He's good on the mic. He can do good promos. He can wrestle and Wrestling Observer Newsletter even gave him the "Most Outstanding Wrestler of the Decade (2000-2009)" honour. He was also trained by Shawn Michaels, who was a guy that had the total package. You clearly hate Daniel Bryan, so what is your deal? Why don't you do yourself a favour and stop watching Daniel Bryan? And by your admission of saying the IWC is meaningless to you, then why are you even bothering posting about Daniel Bryan here? Since we're not convincing you, do you really think you're convincing us?

 

[The Doctor]

Want to know why I like Daniel Bryan? It's because I connect with him. Bryan's character is that of the common nerd. He reads, he's vegan, he isn't built like the people around him, he's scruffy, and he listens to classical music. He's completely average in his look - and that's what makes him stand out. In a world full of larger-than-life personalities and physiques, Bryan is low-key and subtle, and it works for him.

I'm a nerd. I'm 5'10", 190 pounds. I cheer on Bryan because I see myself in him, out there in the ring. He's really what every nerd who has ever been bullied aspires to be. I know that during all the times I was bullied in life I just wanted to somehow turn into an ass-kicking machine. This is exactly what Bryan does.

The thing about Bryan is that he exudes natural charisma and personality. Unfortunately, because it IS so low-key in a world full of loudness and color, people often mistake it for him having no personality at all. They say the best gimmicks are ones that are not a far cry from your actual self, and that's what Bryan is doing: He's playing himself, and that's why the fans love him.

I'm not going to bring up the number of moves he knows, or PWI's awards. Wrestling well is much more than knowing a load of moves. One needs to connect with the fans, and put on good matches, and neither of those have anything to do with the style used. John Cena regularly puts on excellent matches, and he has a limited signature moveset while working a Powerhouse style. Bryan's technical matches are excellent because he knows how to tell a story and suck the crowd in, not because he can do flips and rolls and reversals.

I think Klown_Karnage described him as "The Little Wrestler That Could". Well that's exactly correct. People root for the underdog, the small guy, the wrestler that looks like them. Obviously I'm generalizing here, but I'm sure a good number of us have some degree of nerdiness in them. After all, we're posting about a TV show on an internet message board!

In conclusion, the crowd, myself, the WWE Universe, the IWC, and more all love Bryan because he connects with us, and because everyone loves a good underdog story.

PS: Please stop pretending you don't know his name. His WWE name is Daniel Bryan. He has never been called "Bryan Daniels".

 

[Optimist Prime]

So, Daniel Bryan doesn't practice enough? The Danielson that wrestled for ten years all over the worlds before finally signing a big contract, who by choice went to FCW to learn the WWE style more before going into the big business, who trained rookies, who wrestles on about every show he's invited, even in front of 50 people, despite having the reputation of being the best wrestler, who made a lot of indy appearances even while being in the WWE? That Daniel Bryan? I mean, how do you even want to know?

Do you still stand at your point that his ring work his boring?

Do you still stand at your point that he has no personality?

Did you even read anything that I've written? Apparently not.

I never once said his in-ring work was boring. In fact, I've time and time again given him credit that he has above average in-ring work ability. That was never the point.

But yes, I will always stand by my point that he has no personality. Or at least hasn't shown any of it yet. Which may or may not be his fault. A lot of the new WWE guys coming up (and TNA guys...new guys in general) lack personality or don't show any if they do carry it. Maybe that's just the nature of the game today. And showing by the outcry of support for him and disapproval of me even asking the question...it seems like professional wrestling went from a fun loving entertainment business to a Cirque del Soleil ballet competition show where mainly only in-ring work ability is counted for.

The Doctor,

I appreciate your very professional response (Klown Karnages was too I believe). I guess I can somewhat see that philosophy? I'm 6'3" and 200 lbs and pretty athletic and all of that. I was never a "bully" nor overly arrogant or anything. But while I might like the bigger guys (who have good personality) it's not at all because of my size. Shawn Michaels was small and I think he's one of, if not the, greatest all around talent of all time. Chris Jericho is small and I think he's outstanding. There are exceptions...but again, those 2 examples are the total package. They have the in-ring ability, the personality, and charisma. When I evaluate these guys I look at the big picture...and I've also explained why I look at personality and charisma as having more value than just in-ring ability...as I named several examples of pay-per-view matches with wrestlers who are considered to have below-average to horrible in-ring ability but have put out some of the most memorable matches in our life time (or my life time anyway depending on how old some of you are). Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania 3 was epic. Neither could wrestle a lick but the charisma surrounding them was like nothing else...which made the event incredible. In-ring ability wasn't necessary. A match of Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero (two people who didn't really have any charisma, Eddie maybe a little but nothing close to others) would never in a million years be able to be as legendary. It's just the way it is. Charisma and personality can make in-ring ability a moot factor. In-ring ability alone without any charisma or personality cannot do the same. Perhaps located properly in the middle of a pay-per-view card it can help set up the stage for the main event...but as the main event...it's just not the same. It's not just my opinion...you can simply notice it when comparing the matches.

Daniel Bryan has infinitely more in-ring ability than Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, Ultimate Warrior, Randy Savage, or any of those guys could ever have...but regardless of his in-ring ability, Daniel Bryan will never have a match as big or as popular or as legendary as any of those guys...at least if he keeps this gimmick he currently has anyway.

That's all. He's not a bad wrestler. I've never said that he shouldn't be in the WWE at all. I've only asked why he was so popular...and not just him specifically...I basically just used his name as an example or metaphor for that whole genre of wrestlers coming out now. All in-ring ability and not that much (if at all) personality. That's all.

 

[3/4 Facelock]

TROLLOLOLOLOLOL

This is the best thread I have read in months.

Here we have a guy who is basically troll-begging for a flame war. Asking questions like "Did you even read what I wrote?" I love it. TROLLOLOLOLOL

Listen pal, you really need to open up your own wrestling blog if you are going to respond to every post. Honestly, you don't need to do that. You asked a question, you have had about 50 different people give you about 10 different reasons.

But you.....reply. Why? Ask a question, get an answer, and try to discredit every answer? You are very silly.

So you don't get Bryan Danielson, huh? Even now? One time, in ROH I saw this guy put on a 30 minute match. He lost. That loss, that effort in that loss would be able to beat just about any wrestler in almost any match I have ever seen.

Watching him reminded me of Arn Anderson, Bret Hart, Chris Benoit, Mr. Perfect, and an early 1-2-3-Kid. He was magnificent in the ring.

Maybe we all like him because we've been to one of his shows. Maybe we watched on the internet or just became a fan through NXT. Who knows.

What I do know is that fans of this man have watched him. Many with our own eyes live while some watched recorded. We got to see up close and live just how great he is in the ring. He is a master at his wrestling craft. I got to see what really happens being so close to the action. .

Regardless, this man has and will continue to put on a fantastic show. The US Title is being done a favor by being around his waist.

I understand you don't get it. You don't get his appeal or his skills. You never will. You can't. It's not in you and you do not have that ability. You are a NWO fan. A TNA superfan. That is your kind of wrestling. That is your kind of story. This Bryan Danielson is not for you.

You need to wash out the CORPORATE WWE SCREWING EVERYTHING taste out of your mouth. If I could, I would send you tickets to the nearest indy promotion to watch wrestling. You need perspective.

I mean come on. You have a Kevin Nash tag and a NWO avatar. Your idea of what good wresting is....is obtuse.

 

[Optimist Prime]

TROLLOLOLOLOLOL

Might want to think about investing in a new keyboard...

This is the best thread I have read in months.

Why, thank you. I appreciate it.

Here we have a guy who is basically troll-begging for a flame war. Asking questions like "Did you even read what I wrote?" I love it. TROLLOLOLOLOL

I don't even understand what this means. Judging by the end of the gibberish it looks as though it's still the fact that your keyboard isn't working properly.

Listen pal, you really need to open up your own wrestling blog if you are going to respond to every post. Honestly, you don't need to do that. You asked a question, you have had about 50 different people give you about 10 different reasons.

There you go, you fixed your keyboard. That's good.

Personally, I don't understand why you care or are so concerned with whether or not I reply to my own question that I posted myself. If it makes you upset then don't read it or ignore it. I asked a question and some people gave vague responses and I replied to them the way any person would in any normal discussion. Just because this particular discussion is "online" doesn't mean that I should just ACCEPT the answer because somebody in the peanut gallery like yourself would like me to.

But you.....reply. Why? Ask a question, get an answer, and try to discredit every answer? You are very silly.

I just answered this above. I guess the reason I reply to my own question is the same reason you ask the same question twice in two separate paragraphs. Although I still think mine makes more sense.

So you don't get Bryan Danielson, huh? Even now? One time, in ROH I saw this guy put on a 30 minute match. He lost. That loss, that effort in that loss would be able to beat just about any wrestler in almost any match I have ever seen.

I don't understand how an effort in a loss could be able to "beat" anybody. Professional wrestling has scripted endings and base who wins on several factors...none of them being the wrestler previously losing in a 30 minute match somewhere else.

Watching him reminded me of Arn Anderson, Bret Hart, Chris Benoit, Mr. Perfect, and an early 1-2-3-Kid. He was magnificent in the ring.

I'm sure he was. I never said he wasn't. Although, the majority of those guys had something called charisma...which I have yet to see in Mr. Danielson.

Maybe we all like him because we've been to one of his shows. Maybe we watched on the internet or just became a fan through NXT. Who knows.

What I do know is that fans of this man have watched him. Many with our own eyes live while some watched recorded. We got to see up close and live just how great he is in the ring. He is a master at his wrestling craft. I got to see what really happens being so close to the action.

I mean I've seen some great talent elsewhere and I've even seen great talent in the mainstream that never made it that far...mainly because they lacked the charisma or personality necessary to do so.

Regardless, this man has and will continue to put on a fantastic show. The US Title is being done a favor by being around his waist.

I understand you don't get it. You don't get his appeal or his skills. You never will. You can't. It's not in you and you do not have that ability. You are a NWO fan. A TNA superfan. That is your kind of wrestling. That is your kind of story. This Bryan Danielson is not for you.

No, you're wrong. I get his "skills", I don't get his appeal based just solely on his skills. There is no personality or charisma there...especially with his current character.

And I don't understand how you label me a "troll" because I asked a very simple and necessary question and (heaven forbid) respond on my own thread where I asked the question...but you are somehow able to incorrectly label me based strictly on personal assumptions. And even if I were any of those things you inaccurately depicted...I don't understand who you think you are to tell me or anybody that they can't like somebody because they might also like something else.

You need to wash out the CORPORATE WWE SCREWING EVERYTHING taste out of your mouth. If I could, I would send you tickets to the nearest indy promotion to watch wrestling. You need perspective.

I mean come on. You have a Kevin Nash tag and a NWO avatar. Your idea of what good wresting is....is obtuse.

Here you go again with the nonsense. You call me a "troll" because of a question I asked...berate me because I responded to my own thread...and inaccurately label me and try to tell me and others what we can and cannot like based on your perspective - and then you top it all off with the icing on the cake being your own personal opinion of one-dimensional wrestling being a figure skating competition based strictly on in-ring ability - and my opinions are "obtuse" because I was a fan of the successful version of professional wrestling...when things were much more entertaining, had personality, had charisma, and represented a fantasy world away from your everyday reality.

Professional wrestling isn't MMA, it isn't boxing, it isn't a sport. It's a very entertaining show put on for the fans which is supposed to include good actors, good physiques, good in-ring ability, personality, and charisma...or at least it used to.

 

[The Assassin IX]

That is because he's a WRESTLER, not a superstar.

It's pretty sad how some fans feel that a guy that can actually wrestle is a slap to the face of wrestling when wrestling has always been like that back in the 60's. Vincent McMahon just ruined it by adding excessive stuff and turning it to "sports entertainment". That is the real slap to the face of Pro Wrestling

Nowadays and since Vincent McMahon took over wrestling, wrestlers are wearing colorful tights to go over and do the same punching and kicking you see majority of the wrestlers do before hitting some generic "finisher".

I understand your dislike to Danielson but some of your criticism are just exagerrated.

Some fans are just looking for something else but doesn't necessarily mean he's destroying the sport entertainment agenda.

If you're expecting a WWE superstar, you will be disappointed.

But if you're looking for a WRESTLER with incredible wrestling skills, then you'll absolutely like Danielson. And he's pretty much over for a guy that came out in the minor leagues.

 

[The Brain]

That is because he's a WRESTLER, not a superstar.

It's pretty sad how some fans feel that a guy that can actually wrestle is a slap to the face of wrestling when wrestling has always been like that back in the 60's. Vincent McMahon just ruined it by adding excessive stuff and turning it to "sports entertainment". That is the real slap to the face of Pro Wrestling

Nowadays and since Vincent McMahon took over wrestling, wrestlers are wearing colorful tights to go over and do the same punching and kicking you see majority of the wrestlers do before hitting some generic "finisher".

I understand your dislike to Danielson but some of your criticism are just exagerrated.

Some fans are just looking for something else but doesn't necessarily mean he's destroying the sport entertainment agenda.

If you're expecting a WWE superstar, you will be disappointed.

But if you're looking for a WRESTLER with incredible wrestling skills, then you'll absolutely like Danielson. And he's pretty much over for a guy that came out in the minor leagues.

Sorry to say, but I think you will be the one who is disappointed. Bryan Danielson is done. Daniel Bryan is now a WWE superstar. Like everyone else he will adapt to the WWE style. Say goodbye to the 45 minute matches you liked so much. Do you really think you're going to see the same guy you saw in ROH? He may be very good in the ring, but he is now more superstar than wrestler.