Hulk Hogan/FOTH gets his ass handed to him over and over again | Page 23 | WrestleZone Forums

Hulk Hogan/FOTH gets his ass handed to him over and over again

But Spawn, you ARE a gutter ****. You even have a tattoo on your lower back that says "Gutter ****". lol

Hey, I thought that you said if I didn't tell anybody about the Chocolate Dipped Cherry that you have tattooed on your ass that you wouldn't tell anybody about my tramp stamp. lol
 
It's the psychological aspect.It is the aspect that you are wearing down your opposition and doing something real.Because,unlike those punches and kicks Cena uses,headlocks and chinlocks are at least somewhat real.And ROH also gets stiff sometimes.
Yeah no kidding. I can't remember the last time I saw kicks and punches in a bar fight. Usually, it's just two drunken guys exchanging wristlocks and cross arm bars. It gets damn rowdy down in these parts.

:rolleyes:
Psychology is a myth, in all types of wrestling.
Umm, no. Not even close. The real problem is that most people don't understand what psychology means, so they falsely attribute it to places it never deserves to be.

Psychology is actually telling a story in the match.
Umm....not really.

Psychology if the logic behind the character during a match. It's the actor doing in a match what his/her character would do during the match, playing the character down to the very moves and the way he/she would walk and interact with the crowd. Psychology is the logic behind the character. Storytelling is when the characters portray a story in the ring.
 
Psychology if the logic behind the character during a match. It's the actor doing in a match what his/her character would do during the match, playing the character down to the very moves and the way he/she would walk and interact with the crowd. Psychology is the logic behind the character. Storytelling is when the characters portray a story in the ring.

I'd just group that all under "acting" TBH.
 
I'd just group that all under "acting" TBH.
That's pretty much what psychology is. I mean, a good actor will make his/her audience connect with the character. Take the movie "Rain Man". If Dustin Hoffman had acted like Jim Carrey during the movie, do you really feel as if you would have felt for the autistic character? Of course not. However, because Dustin Hoffman shadowed a true autistic patient for months, he had an insight on how to behave, which assisted his ability to portray a character that people understood.


That's what psychology is. Understanding your character, and being able to portray that to the audience, and have them connect with what you are trying to get across.
 
That's what psychology is. Understanding your character, and being able to portray that to the audience, and have them connect with what you are trying to get across.

I read a interesting interview with Ted Dibiase about this recently. I believe he referred to it as acting rather than psychology too, and gave your definition almost word for word. Good interview, although I couldn't believe he was offended by Austin 3:16 and not HBK tag teaming with God.
 
I read a interesting interview with Ted Dibiase about this recently. I believe he referred to it as acting rather than psychology too, and gave your definition almost word for word. Good interview, although I couldn't believe he was offended by Austin 3:16 and not HBK tag teaming with God.
Oh really? Do you have the link to it, or know where I could find it?

I got my definition from another forum over a year ago.
 
Fighting Spirit Magazine. It just might be, if you're very, very lucky on FightingSpiritMagazine.co.uk. I may quote the shit out of it if I have nothing to do tomorrow. I thought it would be boring, so I went to the AJ Styles interview first. I forgot how dull AJ is in real life.
 
Fighting Spirit Magazine. It just might be, if you're very, very lucky on FightingSpiritMagazine.co.uk. I may quote the shit out of it if I have nothing to do tomorrow.
That's cool. I've been trying to help people understand psychology for a long time, but people are more willing to believe Ted DiBiase than they are a Slyfox696.

Don't ask me why.
 
Finally found the question and the answer I was looking for:

FSM: Ultimately, what do you think it was that made you such a memorable and enduring bad guy?
TD: It's like I tell my boys now, and this is something that Terry Funk told me: you have to think it's real. In your mind, you have to see it as a real fight or a real contest, and you have to think, "How would I really carry myself and what would I really do?"
A lot of guys today don't do that, and I think that part of the reason is that we've told the whole world now that we are showbusiness. But what they don't understand is that basically, to be a great professional wrestler, what you are is a sports entertainer.
You are an actor, and any great actor will tell you that the thing that makes the difference between the guy that's playing the leading role and the guy who's in the supporting role or is somewhere in the background is your ability to project, and to make that character real.
It's the same thing with wrestling - the more realistically you act, the more mannerisms you have... for instance, when I was a heel, of course I didn't mistreat people in hotels or anything like that, but when I got out of the limousine at a building I was The Million Dollar Man.
I didn't shake anybody's hand and I looked down at people in the line because I was the character and they were there for the show - I was just physically absorbed by the character. But once I got back to the hotel, I was Ted. That's what's called making it real, and that makes the difference as far as I'm concerned.
I typed that out word for word.
 
That's pretty much what psychology is. I mean, a good actor will make his/her audience connect with the character. Take the movie "Rain Man". If Dustin Hoffman had acted like Jim Carrey during the movie, do you really feel as if you would have felt for the autistic character? Of course not. However, because Dustin Hoffman shadowed a true autistic patient for months, he had an insight on how to behave, which assisted his ability to portray a character that people understood.


That's what psychology is. Understanding your character, and being able to portray that to the audience, and have them connect with what you are trying to get across.

Actually, that's method acting. Psychology has nothing to do with it. I'd like to point out that Hoffman also got a root canal done, without novacaine, to prepare for I believe it was Marathon Man. No real psychology to that, unless you'd like to try and diagnose Dustin Hoffman as a sado-masochist.
 
Actually, that's method acting. Psychology has nothing to do with it. I'd like to point out that Hoffman also got a root canal done, without novacaine, to prepare for I believe it was Marathon Man. No real psychology to that, unless you'd like to try and diagnose Dustin Hoffman as a sado-masochist.
The example is used to illustrate the concept of wrestling psychology, not to quibble over acting styles. Wrestling psychology is the person behaving like his character would. I used the Hoffman example to illustrate the difference between acting like Jim Carrey and acting like an autistic person.

You can use that example to illuminate how it works in wrestling. Let's say the Great Khali, billed as this massive monster of a man, would go out and do a bunch of chain wrestling, trading holds with his opponent. Would that make sense for his character? No, that would be Dustin Hoffman doing his Jim Carrey impersonation. Thus, poor wrestling psychology.
 
I would like to see Jim Carrey and Dustin Hoffman work together. If memory serves me correctly, and when it comes to movies it usually does, Jim Carrey and Dustin Hoffman have never acted together, with the exception of Hoffman's cameo in A Series of Unfortunate events, but I don't think the two really interacted, so I say it doesn't count.
 
I was looking through the thread and saw all of this talk about technical wrestlers. There have been many technical wrestlers in the WWE, and they have had success because of many reasons other than their style of wrestling.
Let's use Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit as examples. Angle got to WWE partly because of his notoriety, yes. However, the reason he was so succesful is because he could play so many roles well. He could be the intense face or the heel who wanted to avoid physical punsihmnt at all costs. A prime example of this is his Backlash 2001 Ultimate Submission match against Benoit. Angle went outside the ring at least 15 times because that's what his character would do. It wasn't "great" wrestling, but it made sense in the match and added to the storyline.
Now onto Benoit. He mastered the role of a never say die, intense man. He was always focused on the match and you could never count him out. During that same Backlash 2001 match, Benoit shoved the ref, attacked Angle during the rest period, and held onto his submissions long after Angle tapped. Why? Because that's what his character would do. It wasn't a "face" way to act, but it worked.
It isn't all about the moves. There has to be a flow to the match and some personality.
 
You know what I have not explained myself enough in this thread. ROH>WWE because ROH=Pro Wrestling and WWE=Soap Opera. Plain and simple if I wanted to watch a soap opera I would watch All My Children. I wanna watch professional wrestling which is what ROH provides. I don't wanna watch a soap opera which is what WWE provides. I wanna see quality matches and good wrestling, which is what ROH provides. I don't wanna see two minute squash matches, one guy always winning, and weddings and midgets, which is what WWE provides. Now I'll admit WWE will every now and then provide a good storyline or angle that I like and will attract me, but other than that they have nothing. So to me, ROH>WWE.

Oh yeah and Cena, I can still see you. I just gotta move my head one way when your hand goes the other.
 
You know what I have not explained myself enough in this thread. ROH>WWE because ROH=Pro Wrestling and WWE=Soap Opera. Plain and simple if I wanted to watch a soap opera I would watch All My Children. I wanna watch professional wrestling which is what ROH provides. I don't wanna watch a soap opera which is what WWE provides. I wanna see quality matches and good wrestling, which is what ROH provides. I don't wanna see two minute squash matches, one guy always winning, and weddings and midgets, which is what WWE provides. Now I'll admit WWE will every now and then provide a good storyline or angle that I like and will attract me, but other than that they have nothing. So to me, ROH>WWE.

Oh yeah and Cena, I can still see you. I just gotta move my head one way when your hand goes the other.
Yeah, you're right. ROH has NOTHING to do with soap opera. Funny and strange characters, series of "outcasts", guys joining factions by turning on their partners...nothing soap opera about that. :rolleyes:

Seriously, just give it up. You're wrong. ROH and WWE do the EXACT same thing thing, except the WWE does it a WHOLE lot better.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top