Are we fans or "Kurt Angle nut holders"?

[Coco]

Constantly, I see any match that follows a certain basic structure (boring mat wrestling, stand-off, more wrestling, escalation, high-spots) getting praised as a classic match. Most of the "best" matches of this decade follow this basis structure, some matches involving the same few wrestlers even involving some of the exact same sequences and spots. I find a lot of this wrestling to be boring, repetitive, and uninspiring. It's the kind of tripe that the IWC has taught us to like, and it's this kind of tripe that the WWE has put on constantly in recent years when it can't come up with a decent storyline. Prime example: Angle vs. Michaels.

Why do people buy into this stuff?

Why do people who buy into this kind of wrestling feel that they're "real wrestling fans"?

Aren't these people the same brain-washed marks they claim not to be since they'll eat any lengthy HBK match that involves a few finisher reversals or any Angle match that involves rolling ankle-locks and a top rop Angle-slam up with a spoon?

The conventional wisdom of the IWC is selling you people a lie. It's selling uninspired "epic" encounters with little original thought put into them. If anyone thought for themself when it comes to these sorts of matters, they'd realize that the average "epic match" these days isn't all that great or novel.

Instead of being critical wrestling fans or independent thinkers, the internet has turned a lot of us into "Kurt Angle nut holders." A "Kurt Angle nut holder" is someone who cares more about whether a match has boring mat wrestling that pointlessly transitions into meaningless high-spots than they do about their own likes and dislikes. A "Kurt Angle nut holder" is most likely to come on a board and post about what they think the IWC at large would enjoy, putting very little independent thought into their posts and never letting Kurt Angle's figurative testicles fall out of their mouth.

What is your opinion on the "Kurt Angle nut holder" mentality?

Has WWE enabled it in recent years with weak storylines and too much emphasis on wrestling in a certain formulaic way?

What can be done to counter the "Kurt Angle nut holder" mentality?

Are "Kurt Angle nut holders" more arrogant than the average fan?

 

[Kanye South]

I completely agree. That was hilarious, by the way. I'm tired of people coming on here and saying that Batista and John Cena suck because they can't mat wrestle for 10 minutes straight, or they don't know how to do the Assburn Armbar Peniscrusher #10 in one swift move. I feel that these people who pride themselves in holding Kurt Angle's genitals are mindless sheep who can't form their own opinions. Wrestling should be about storylines and not whether Michaels held the Figure 27 Nipple Lock for more than 5 minutes. A main reason why the WWE is occasionally stale today is the abundance of focus on matches, and not the focus on creative and interesting storylines. People who always praise match quality over storyline value should look to the Attitude Era and see how it was much more entertaining than what we get today. Kurt Angle nut holders are arrogant bastards and are the fans who use shit like "Czena only knos 5 movez".

Take Kurt Angle's dirty, smelly, shrunken weiner out of your mouth and think for yourselves, you stupid wankers.

 

[Schoolboy-Chris]

What you describe there is often the outline of a really good match, not just with Kurt Angle but with any number of wrestlers. People always complain about a lack of in-ring psychology or storytelling ability but when you build a match up slowly into a fast paced finish then that’s exactly what you are doing. Starting off with a less is more type scenario – mat wrestling and testing each other out, is a great way of testing the crowd enthusiasm and drawing them slowly into the match. The John Cena’s and Batista’s that people complain about may not have the grappling skill to do this, or it may just be a case of them mixing it up and wrestling a different style. That is not to say that they couldn’t of course, just that each wrestler has a different style and this is not a part of theirs. If everyone started a match with a spinebuster or a high impact move then there is only so much time that the match can last. Setting the pace is important for a well structured match and that is exactly what the typical Angle match accomplishes.

I do not necessarily think that the IWC has taught us to praise this type of match, I think it is more that this is the type of match that demonstrates a skill that takes time and effort to hone. The point of an epic match is to take the viewers on a journey and to tell them a story, any good story has to have layers and showcasing different wrestling styles is something that Angle for one is great at. Finisher reversals are exciting because they treat the fans, letting them know that they are witnessing a real contest rather than a squash match or uneven pairing. Near falls, reversals and numerous possible endings are important facets of a good match if they are inserted in the proper context. Kurt Angle has fans online and in general because he is a great well rounded wrestler, I think that the match structure you describe is one of many solid and even great matches, and is a summary of what the evolution of wrestling has come to over time.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I completely agree. That was hilarious, by the way. I'm tired of people coming on here and saying that Batista and John Cena suck because they can't mat wrestle for 10 minutes straight, or they don't know how to do the Assburn Armbar Peniscrusher #10 in one swift move. I feel that these people who pride themselves in holding Kurt Angle's genitals are mindless sheep who can't form their own opinions. Wrestling should be about storylines and not whether Michaels held the Figure 27 Nipple Lock for more than 5 minutes. A main reason why the WWE is occasionally stale today is the abundance of focus on matches, and not the focus on creative and interesting storylines. People who always praise match quality over storyline value should look to the Attitude Era and see how it was much more entertaining than what we get today. Kurt Angle nut holders are arrogant bastards and are the fans who use shit like "Czena only knos 5 movez".

I agree with JKO's post. In this issue, I pretty much take a similar view on this to the one that South Park did.... The kind of wrestling that these people view as "real wrestling" is incredibly boring to some of us. If they want to like that style of wrestling so much, that's fine because they are entitled to their opinion. The rest of us like storylines, characters, pyros, heel turns, face turns, things like that. Everything that makes it into a SHOW that ENTERTAINS us. "Real" wrestling is about wrestling. WWE and TNA are about putting on an entertaining show for the fans. Those "Kurt Angle nut holders" as they have been called, need to just let US enjoy the type of wrestling that WE enjoy.

 

[Coco]

People always complain about a lack of in-ring psychology or storytelling ability but when you build a match up slowly into a fast paced finish then that’s exactly what you are doing. Starting off with a less is more type scenario – mat wrestling and testing each other out, is a great way of testing the crowd enthusiasm and drawing them slowly into the match.

Bullshit. Don't embellish the reality of the situation here.

Long, extended rest-hold and mat wrestling sequences bore the audiences, in turn making ANYTHING ELSE seem exciting. Pretty much at least 1/3rd of these types of matches are pointless downtime and filler. Why do we need it when a better match can tell just as good of a story in 15 minutes rather than 30?

The John Cena’s and Batista’s that people complain about may not have the grappling skill to do this, or it may just be a case of them mixing it up and wrestling a different style.

John Cena layed on the mat and took an HBK headlock in the opening minutes of their WM23 match.

How is this any different than what Angle did in the opening of his WM21 match with Michaels?

Is Angle really all that better?

That is not to say that they couldn’t of course, just that each wrestler has a different style and this is not a part of theirs. If everyone started a match with a spinebuster or a high impact move then there is only so much time that the match can last.

Good. It makes wrestlers look stronger when they don't need to humor scrawy old hacks like Michaels for thirty minutes. If anything, it taking Angle forever beat HBK made him and his submission hold look week.

So where's the good in these overlong, boring, credibility destroying bouts?

Setting the pace is important for a well structured match and that is exactly what the typical Angle match accomplishes.

Yet people like him are nothing more than time hogs. Which would be fine if they needed every minute to get their point across. They don't. A good wrestler can tell a good story despite time restrictions.

 

[Schoolboy-Chris]

Bullshit. Don't embellish the reality of the situation here.

Long, extended rest-hold and mat wrestling sequences bore the audiences, in turn making ANYTHING ELSE seem exciting. Pretty much at least 1/3rd of these types of matches are pointless downtime and filler. Why do we need it when a better match can tell just as good of a story in 15 minutes rather than 30?

I fail to see how I am embellishing the situation by stating that buildup in a match tests the audience and an opponent. Wrestlers can use a period at the beginning of a match to test each other out and get going, rather than jumping straight into high impact moves. I am not defending rest-holds, they are a part of a lot more wrestler’s repertoires than just Angle or Shawn Michaels’ so I don’t think that this is the real issue. A match in half the time would not be better, it could have all the high spots of the shorter match but with less psychology behind it, which ultimately requires less skill to accomplish. The process of a long match is one where a wrestler can show off their ability, this can better be demonstrated in a long match with a fast pace, as keeping up the pace is a further way to exhibit wrestling skill. I am not saying that every match “needs” an opening period in which wrestlers test each other, I am saying that some matches that are going to be well structured benefit greatly from this as it lets the audience know what they are in for, a glimpse at a time.

John Cena layed on the mat and took an HBK headlock in the opening minutes of their WM23 match.

How is this any different than what Angle did in the opening of his WM21 match with Michaels?

Is Angle really all that better?

I am not here to criticize Cena, or to compare him to Angle. I am a fan of Cena and feel that he is an accomplished wrestler in his own manner, different to that of Angle. Cena may test out his opponent by using a shoulder block or a test of strength, and this is exactly what Angle does, it accomplishes the same thing but in a different manner.

Good. It makes wrestlers look stronger when they don't need to humor scrawy old hacks like Michaels for thirty minutes. If anything, it taking Angle forever beat HBK made him and his submission hold look week.

So where's the good in these overlong, boring, credibility destroying bouts?

I am also not here to argue over whether Michaels is past it and taking up a younger wrestlers place on the roster. The fact is that at the time of Angle and Michael’s WM match they were both considered to be two of the best in the world, and this was to be a test of who was better. If the story had been that Michaels was too old to hang with Angle then he could have been hit with an immediate Angle Slam and that could have been the end of it. But that wasn’t the background to the match.

The two had been feuding up to this point, a feud that promised the fans a match in which they would see each both Angle and Michaels take each other to the limit before one came out on top. If the match had been a short bout then the fans would have felt cheated, because this would not have been the epic match that the two could, and in my opinion, did have. I fail to see how having a match that was PWI match of the year for 2005 would destroy the credibility of either wrestler. I know that it is a subjective matter to give an award such as this but it is prestigious nonetheless and lends great weight behind a wrestler’s name.

You may all these matches boring and overlong but a huge number of people who witnessed the match consider it one of the highlights ahead of the night. If the match structure and the match itself are so flawed then why does no one recognise John Cena against JBL the same night as a great match? It was in the same event, watched by the same people and included much less mat and technical wrestling. From the differences in how these matches were received it is obvious that the majority of fans appreciate the storytelling that this match employed, and they continue to structure big matches this way because that is what the fans want.

Yet people like him are nothing more than time hogs. Which would be fine if they needed every minute to get their point across. They don't. A good wrestler can tell a good story despite time restrictions.

Yes a good wrestler can tell a story no matter what the time limit, but when there is time to play with in an event such as Wrestlemania a company such as the WWE knew that Angle and Michaels were wrestlers that they could turn to that would not disappoint. They don’t need every minute to get their message across but they use every minute that they are allocated to ensure that they deliver the best match possible. If this manner of match is so flawed then tell me what should replace it.

 

[Coco]

I fail to see how I am embellishing the situation by stating that buildup in a match tests the audience and an opponent.

If by "tests the audience" you mean "tests the audience to stay awake."

If by "tests an opponent" you mean "makes sure a wrestler isn't that one in a million talent to lose in a headlock."

Explain why these are tests worth having.

Wrestlers can use a period at the beginning of a match to test each other out and get going, rather than jumping straight into high impact moves.

Because all high impact move centered matches have no psychology? Explain that one to me. What does a match that starts with pointless headlocks and "feeling out" accomplish that a match without that stage does? Other than bore the audience, of course. We already know that it does that, whether people want to admit or not. I don't expect anyone on here to be that honest with me though. People around these parts are more concerned with how much IWC-cred they have with the "Kurt Angle nut holders" than they are about expressing their own views on a matter.

When answering, use specifics. I don't want to read more vague generalities about "ability." That make fly for some other people, but you have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull that crap over on me.

A match in half the time would not be better, it could have all the high spots of the shorter match but with less psychology behind it, which ultimately requires less skill to accomplish.

Bullshit.

Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels from SummerSlam 2002 is a prime example of something considered an "epic" encounter that didn't stretch itself out with pointless feeling out processes, was chalk full of high impact offense from bell to bell, and told one hell of a story.

You can't tell me that ten minutes of short-arm-scissors and headlocks with the crowd falling asleep as a prelude to the real action somehow makes a match better than one that doesn't have that sequence. It doesn't. There are matches out there that go long and use their time efficiently to tell a story with high impact offense. So why do people cream themselves over headlocks and "feeling out" when that stuff is obsolete?

The process of a long match is one where a wrestler can show off their ability, this can better be demonstrated in a long match with a fast pace, as keeping up the pace is a further way to exhibit wrestling skill. I am not saying that every match “needs” an opening period in which wrestlers test each other, I am saying that some matches that are going to be well structured benefit greatly from this as it lets the audience know what they are in for, a glimpse at a time.

Actually, a slow start lets most casual fans know they are in for a bathroom break.

What is this ability you speak of? Surely if they had the ability to handle a long match with a fast pace, they wouldn't waste the fans' time and stretch their match out pointlessly with submissions that normally don't matter when it comes time for the end-game.

You call it ability, I call it an excuse to let people with the reputation of being "good workers" get away with being lazy and not putting in 110% during lengthy matches.

Bret vs. Michaels @ WM12 is a prime example of this.

Are long matches that use mostly high-impact offense somehow not well structured? Break this down for me. Be specific.

I am not here to criticize Cena, or to compare him to Angle. I am a fan of Cena and feel that he is an accomplished wrestler in his own manner, different to that of Angle. Cena may test out his opponent by using a shoulder block or a test of strength, and this is exactly what Angle does, it accomplishes the same thing but in a different manner.

Except the audience absolutely loses their shit and mark the fuck out when Cena throws down a shoulder block.

Angle throwing down a headlock and body-scissors... Not so much.

See the difference?

I'll tell you. Cena acomplishes something with his offense. He's efficient.

I am also not here to argue over whether Michaels is past it and taking up a younger wrestlers place on the roster.

Good, 'cause you'd lose that argument too.

The fact is that at the time of Angle and Michael’s WM match they were both considered to be two of the best in the world, and this was to be a test of who was better. If the story had been that Michaels was too old to hang with Angle then he could have been hit with an immediate Angle Slam and that could have been the end of it. But that wasn’t the background to the match.

This makes no sense.

Flair-Michaels at WM24 was based on Flair being too old to hang and he was made to look almost equal one of the "best in the world." A guy being billed as possibly over it doesn't necessitate a long match.

Anyway, that was completely off topic and beside the point. I guess I was just trying to show that you have a habit of using poor logic.

The two had been feuding up to this point,

a feud that promised the fans a match in which they would see each both Angle and Michaels take each other to the limit before one came out on top. If the match had been a short bout then the fans would have felt cheated, because this would not have been the epic match that the two could, and in my opinion, did have.

Way to use conventional thinking and show no real vision, in ture Kurt Angle nut holder fashion.

Conventional thinking is wrong there though. Every other month when a match is built up as an epic, the WWE trying to give us what we think is epic leads to some pretty by-the-numbers epics (Like Angle-Michaels. How many other Angle "epics" follow this structure? Plenty.) that dilute the importance of truly unique and important epics.

Also, real athletes talk themself up all the time about how epic and competitive a showdown will be and fall short of the bar come game time or match time. The WWE should capitalize on this sometimes to make their product more unpredictable and give everything a must-see feel.

I fail to see how having a match that was PWI match of the year for 2005 would destroy the credibility of either wrestler. I know that it is a subjective matter to give an award such as this but it is prestigious nonetheless and lends great weight behind a wrestler’s name.

No, it doesn't PWI is a fucking rag that can't decide whether it's kayfabe or not and I wasn't aware this was their 2005 MOTY until you mentioned it to me.

Piss poor choice. Flair and Triple H had an emotion, bloody cage match that was epic in ways that the standard "cookie cutter WWE epic" from WM21 could never be.

Of course I should know better than expect you to go against the status quo in this argument. Heaven forbid you have an original thought.

You may all these matches boring and overlong but a huge number of people who witnessed the match consider it one of the highlights ahead of the night.

Because the IWC has indoctrinated you to like these things and has rewarded such conformity with acceptance for years.

If the match structure and the match itself are so flawed

*is

If the match structure and the match itself is so flawed then why does no one recognise John Cena against JBL the same night as a great match? It was in the same event, watched by the same people and included much less mat and technical wrestling. From the differences in how these matches were received it is obvious that the majority of fans appreciate the storytelling that this match employed,

Pretty much the same answer as above. The IWC has indoctrinated you to like Angle-Michaels and has rewarded such conformity with acceptance for years. Nobody wants to be that black-sheep who thinks for themself.

and they continue to structure big matches this way because that is what the fans want.

This is typical of WWE this decade. Forget orginal thinking, compelling stories, and must-see unpredicability. The mentality is "Let's book on cruise control and make the Kurt Angle nut holders feel special rather than reaching out to the masses and striving for greatness. Less effort that way."

Yes a good wrestler can tell a story no matter what the time limit, but when there is time to play with in an event such as Wrestlemania a company such as the WWE knew that Angle and Michaels were wrestlers that they could turn to that would not disappoint. They don’t need every minute to get their message across but they use every minute that they are allocated to ensure that they deliver the best match possible.

But they really didn't. If they had, there would have been 27 minutes worth of interesting, compelling, smart content there that never leave you look away. There wasn't.

If this manner of match is so flawed then tell me what should replace it.

See JBL vs. Eddie Guerrero @ Judgement Day 2004, Austin vs. Bret @ WM13, Cena vs. Umaga @ Royal Rumble 2007, Michaels vs. Triple H @ SummerSlam 2002, an so on. If the difference doesn't walk up and slap you in the face, than the IWC has really done quite the number on you.

 

[jazzua]

Constantly, I see any match that follows a certain basic structure (boring mat wrestling, stand-off, more wrestling, escalation, high-spots) getting praised as a classic match. Most of the "best" matches of this decade follow this basis structure, some matches involving the same few wrestlers even involving some of the exact same sequences and spots. I find a lot of this wrestling to be boring, repetitive, and uninspiring. It's the kind of tripe that the IWC has taught us to like, and it's this kind of tripe that the WWE has put on constantly in recent years when it can't come up with a decent storyline. Prime example: Angle vs. Michaels.

Why do people buy into this stuff?

Why do people who buy into this kind of wrestling feel that they're "real wrestling fans"?

Aren't these people the same brain-washed marks they claim not to be since they'll eat any lengthy HBK match that involves a few finisher reversals or any Angle match that involves rolling ankle-locks and a top rop Angle-slam up with a spoon?

The conventional wisdom of the IWC is selling you people a lie. It's selling uninspired "epic" encounters with little original thought put into them. If anyone thought for themself when it comes to these sorts of matters, they'd realize that the average "epic match" these days isn't all that great or novel.

Instead of being critical wrestling fans or independent thinkers, the internet has turned a lot of us into "Kurt Angle nut holders." A "Kurt Angle nut holder" is someone who cares more about whether a match has boring mat wrestling that pointlessly transitions into meaningless high-spots than they do about their own likes and dislikes. A "Kurt Angle nut holder" is most likely to come on a board and post about what they think the IWC at large would enjoy, putting very little independent thought into their posts and never letting Kurt Angle's figurative testicles fall out of their mouth.

What is your opinion on the "Kurt Angle nut holder" mentality?

Has WWE enabled it in recent years with weak storylines and too much emphasis on wrestling in a certain formulaic way?

What can be done to counter the "Kurt Angle nut holder" mentality?

Are "Kurt Angle nut holders" more arrogant than the average fan?

Good god. Again? Really? ROHbot, shareholder, smark, mark, and now Kurt Angle nut holder? Really? When did it become so difficult to be a wrestling fan? I think the real problem is people thinking way too much. Every type of fan doesn't need some catchy term. Especially this one, which isn't catchy, and makes me kind of sad. What is my opinion? It's wrong, silly, and doesn't mean anything.

This idea, is no different than the shareholder idea. You have simply taken away Vince, added Kurt, slapped some shiny stuff on it and call it something new. Call That gimmick infringement.

I'll play along though. People fall for this stuff because it is entertaining. It won't be entertaining to everyone, obviously, it isn't to you. Rest holds, things of that nature can drag a match down if not used correctly, which they always aren't. But when they are used correctly to tell a story then they fullfill their purpose. You can have all the great storylines you want outside of the ring, but the great ones in the ring are what I love. And I, by your standards, apparently love to hold testicles of Kurt Angle in my hand.

The real problem I see here is that your definition actually entales me to seriously think about how I really want the match I'm watching to have boring mat wrestling that pointlessly transitions into meaningless high-spots. I'm sure it's sub-conscious, but still. Do you really think people think that way? Or is it possible that people just really enjoy this type of match? Nah, couldn't be possible because that doesn't go with your form of thought.

I enjoy these "old school" matches. Which is basically what they are. Taker/HBK at WM falls into this category. I love this type of match. I enjoy the rest holds. The rest holds serve a purpose. Yes, it does make other aspects of the match more entertaining, maybe that's their purpose. All I know, is I will take a "legendary" HBK match following your very vague set of rules to complete spot fest that makes no sense. I throw in WM 21 all the time. Angle/HBK is a masterpiece. Up and down, they take you for a ride. Thats the point. Then again, I enjoy testicles, so there you go.

To answer your last question, I think your "KANH" are the average fan. Most fans, enjoy Angle matches, Shawn matches ect. And how you even come up with a question about how arrogant these people are is beyond me. What would make them arrogant?

Typical nut holder response, I'm sure.

 

[jazzua]

Because all high impact move centered matches have no psychology? Explain that one to me. What does a match that starts with pointless headlocks and "feeling out" accomplish that a match without that stage does? Other than bore the audience, of course. We already know that it does that, whether people want to admit or not. I don't expect anyone on here to be that honest with me though. People around these parts are more concerned with how much IWC-cred they have with the "Kurt Angle nut holders" than they are about expressing their own views on a matter.
QUOTE]

See, while I understand your argument, the opposite is also true. If every match had nothing but, as you refer, high impact moves minus some for of chain wrestling than those impact moves would lose all luster. It's the suspension of disbelief factor. I know it's not real, so do you. However, their job is to make you forget that for a couple of hours. I don't disagree with you completely. The Summerslam 2002 match is a hell of a match. Probably my favorite between HBK and Hunter. But it was also a street fight. Which, by definition, especially at a ppv, means a little more rough and tough than a normal match would be.

Anytime someone tries to bunch together a large group of fans and refer to them in a negative light it just bothers me. You actually referred to these people as not real wrestling fans. I would like to know what makes a real wrestling fan then. I don't feel anyone is honestly going to sit here and say taht they love the portion of the match that uses a headlock. But, I never find myself annoyed by it either. It is a situation in which when done right adds to a match. When you have a match like Jericho and HBK and you get to see some good chain wrestling with some nice counters it pulls you into a match, at least it does me.

This seems more to be just a matter of preference than anything. You say fans go nuts from a Cena shoulder block. I guess, most boo, but sure. But by that standard, people went nuts when Austin threw a punch? People go crazy for Shawns nip-up, and went nuts for Steamboats arm drag. You are talking about the face of the company. His shoulder block comes after getting his ass handed to him for 10 minutes, of course they will mark out. It's what they are suppose to do.

Lastly, how did the Flair/HBK match not make sense? You say that Flair wasn't suppose to be in Shawns league, which largely wasn't the premise, and therefore shouldn't have gotten a long match out of Shawn. However, the whole point was Flair was on his las leg, going up against the coined, "Mr. Wrestlemania" in what could be his last match. That's the storyline. Flair is going to give it everything he has b/c if he loses he goes home. Flair was booked strong going into WM. He went however long without a loss and was written up to be trying to make one last run. It makes perfect sense that Flair would do all he could to survive. That the match would be a fight for both competitors. If it had been a five minute match, I'm pretty sure most of the wrestling world would have been extremely pissed. I paid my money to see Flairs last match, and I wanted it to go as long as possible.