I guess you guys know more about "wrestling" then I do since you've been watching for what a few years?
Around 1987 or 1988, I do believe.
Since you're so interested.
Not any idiot can do flips and moonsaults
Bullshit. I see plenty of idiots do flips and moonsaults. Just do a Youtube search.
they need years of training for that.
To do a backflip? So all those kids I saw jumping off the diving board when I was 10 had years of training?
Bullshit.
You're right you have to do more then moves.. but someone like RVD, Steamboat, Mr. Perfect, Ric Flair, Kurt Angle, and Bret Hart were cheered and booed for being great performers and because they can wrestle.
And yet, you have NO idea what it means to "wrestle". How did RVD "wrestle"? Please tell me. Because he did a bunch of fake moves on a willing partner that look incredibly fake and laughable? That meant he could "wrestle"?
Do you understand anything about wrestling?
Hogan only did a few moves like Cena but was cheered and booed also for being a great performer. We will just agree to disagree because Cena is your generation.. and the other guys are my generation.
LOL, my generation goes back to the same guys yours does. Guys like Hogan, Piper, Flair, Steamboat, Orndorff, Windham, Anderson, Morton, Rhodes, etc.
but when it comes to pure athleticism my vote goes to someone along the lines of Angle, Bret Hart, Perfect, Shawn Michaels, and Ricky Steamboat.
LOL, Bret Hart wasn't a very good athlete at all. There have been hundreds of guys who were better athletes than Bret Hart.
But, very few of them were as good of a wrestler. And the reason is because athleticism has ZERO to do with being a good wrestler. Hell, compare someone like Stan Hansen to Shelton Benjamin. Benjamin is three times the athlete that Hansen is, but doesn't even deserve to be on the same card as someone like Hansen.
And, as far as being a "good athlete" goes, John Cena was an All-American lineman in college. So, I dare say he was a decent athlete as well.
I know these wrestlers were before your time but they could perform and still give a good match besides just cut a promo. But I know nothing about "wrestling" even though I've been watching it before you were born and because you guys know everything.
Before my time, eh?
I get your point - telling a story over moves. Valid in a small way but still a very flawed point.
Here's the thing. Moves=variety. Same old stuff=formula. Formula can be fun at times, many others it gets boring, bland and people get tired of it despite the fact that its "solid" (a word the IWC likes to butcher these days).
Being able to use a variety of moves in your different matches while still telling a story is a lost art in today's WWE.
Of course, wrestling is more than just moves. But like I said, moves still equal variety in the wrestler's stories. Finishers and sigs are necessary. But they are only part of the story.
Wrong, my good friend...actually, you're not my friend, and I don't know you. But you're still wrong.
Let's put it this way. Take John Grisham, Steven King, and J.R.R. Tolkien. Outside of maybe a word here or there, wouldn't you say they use the same vocabulary? Of course they do. But are their stories even close to being the same? Not in the least.
Moves are only important to further the story of the match. John Cena plays the character of the All-American brawler, the modern day John Wayne. He goes out, rough and tough, never gives up, and punches his way to victory. The classic American good guy. Why would it make sense for him to use springboard moonsault? Flying head scissors? Why would he take a guy down with an intricate chain of wrestling resulting in an arm bar? That'd be stupid, and would be completely ridiculous for his character.
A variety of moves does exactly dick for your ability to tell a story. Take Bret Hart. His moveset was virtually the same his entire singles career, and he really didn't use that many moves. But the stories were always different, because he was a damn good worker. The same goes for John Cena. Number of moves has dick to do with how good of a wrestler you are.
And sadly, sometimes I think people who pretty much say "I don't give a damn as long as it tells a story" are part of the reason behind that. If the fans constantly defend the bland style - why will WWE change their main event style or encourage their midcard to turn it up a notch when they are trying to get in that higher spot where they will have to change their style anyway?
Style and story are two completely separate issues. The WWF works, primarily, more of a brawling style. Where big strong guys throw punches and kicks, and use a bunch of power moves. Sure, there are guys like Evan Bourne, and Fit Finlay who work different styles, but when you get to the main-event, that's generally the style you'll see. And it makes sense, because that is traditionally the type of fighting Americans want to see; big strong gladiators duking it out with their fists.
But, take Hart vs. Austin from WM 13 and compare it to Cena vs. Triple H at WM 22. Both those matches worked the same style, but had COMPLETELY different stories. Hart vs. Austin was basically a match to see who was the bigger badass. Who could beat-up who. And it was great. The match had a great story. The Cena vs. Triple H match was Brawler vs. Technician (which is dumb because Trips is a terrible wrestler...but, I digress). And, you can see that story play out in the beginning with Trips "outwrestling" Cena, and the story progresses to the end, where Cena catches Triple H with a drop toehold (a wrestling move) and beats him with a submission move.
Both matches featured the same style, but completely different stories.
Personally, I want variety and a good story. That's the reason I've enjoyed the hell out of Mysterio and Jericho. They have done stuff against each other you have not seen out of them in months or even years. It's different, fresh, exciting. Both wonderful storytelling and a variety of moves, spots, whatever you want to call them.
Moves and spots are completely different. Moves are like the words to a story. Spots are the moments that are planned before a match, that the wrestlers work towards to help build heat in the match.
The main event could be the same. Slower style perhaps but it could be a variety combined with storytelling. Sadly, we live in times when spots are considered evil by most fans.
No their not. But see, people like you don't really know what a spot is, so they see people who have knowledge of wrestling call things a "spotfest" and they just jump on the bandwagon.
EVERY match has spots. EVERY match. Like I said earlier, spots are just pre-planned moments in a match that the wrestlers work toward, in order to tell their story and build heat in the match. However, many people think spots are aerial moves or "holy shit" moments. They are completely different. When people throw the word "spotfests" around, what they mean is that the match has no good transitions from spot to spot, nothing that logically connects each spot with the next, to build the story. Instead, a spotfest match is where there is just a bunch of spots, and the wrestlers hit those spots for no reason. And that's why a spotfest is considered bad.
Some matches have more spots than others. For example, a Ric Flair match was usually called on the fly. They'd have a beginning spot, an end, and maybe one or two in the middle, but everything else was called on the fly. By comparison, Savage vs. Steamboat from WM 3 was planned out almost entirely. In theory, that whole match could be call a spot.
I remember back in the MNW era where Malenko, Benoit, etc would go out and tear things up with variety and a good story. People appreciated it. Now if someone uses more than 5 moves in a match - half the time it's a crap match because there's not enough story (even if there is one).
People did like Rey/Jericho so maybe there's hope.
Those matches worked because the guys doing them understood that the moves had no impact on the match, just the story they were telling.
If you want to watch a bunch of wrestling moves, go buy a wrestling training tape. I bet you won't be entertained though.
I didn't know it could take years to do a moonsault either.
A backflip requires YEARS of training...
I wasn't talking about you or the other people on this thread just slyfox. It doesn't take years to do a moonsault but not anyone can do it.
Yes, anyone can. Regardless of whether you have training in wrestling or not, you can do a backflip.
So your just attacking Slyfox saying hes just a fan of this generation when you have no idea when he started watching wrestling or how old he is.
I'm 10 years old. Don't you see that in my profile?
I shouldn't of bashed sly but a younger WWE fan telling everyone they know nothing about wrestling is insulting to everyone.
Why does my age matter, when you know nothing about wrestling?
While Cena is no Bret Hart or Kurt Angle
And thank God for that. Because one Angle is bad enough.
Luckily Cena is much better than Angle.
