DirtyJosé;5418947 said:
Considering I never saw shirts for those guys on Raw, and they in fact were not part of the hottest angle in Japanese wrestling for the last 2-3 years, no, they would not rate as greatest anything by my standards. The Bucks have tangible results, the example you listed do not.
You’re still missing my point, which is that the Bucks are polarizing, regardless of their popularity. Just like John Cena. On any given night, Cena can be cheered or booed out of the building, and the Bucks, to a lesser degree, are subject to the same type of dichotomy. Now, before you selectively quote or bold only a segment of this, as you’ve done a few times now, again, I’m only speaking to
type. These are not direct comparable. They are not living, breathing replicas of one another. I’m speaking to the polarity of these performers, and illustrating a common link, which is often not part of the same causation.
And I was being hyperbolic regarding Val Venis and Orlando Jordan. Clearly. Or at least I thought it was clear.
And all of this circles back to my earlier point which is that I, me alone, find it inexplicable that these two have gotten this over with this kind of gimmick, because for me, myself only, it’s simply not entertaining. They insult the industry that puts food on their table. Again,
my opinion. Only mine.
Which would, of course, be the whole point in pro wrestling going back to the earliest days. The whole point of a heel is to get that exact response from a mark. I mean, what kind of person PAYS to see someone they hate? Marks. You keep comparing the Bucks to Cena, and it's not doing your argument any favors at all.
Another conflation and selective reading. I said half the arena would pay to see Cena be legitimately hurt. Not be beaten up within the storyline. Though I’m sure a portion of that same fanbase would accept that as a consolation prize. I feel the same is true, to some degree, of the Bucks. Particularly with more traditional wrestling fans who still appreciate kayfabe and broader, WWE/TNA-style story-telling.
It wasn't a hot ticket until after the Bucks had arrived. Reading your interpretation of it, and your lack of a committed response, I am left with the impression that you in fact do not know what you are talking about because you have not watched this product. And considering the biggest complaint you have, that the Bucks are picking up gimmicks from other performers, is a part of the BC gimmick it is a bit hypocritical to blast the Bucks for the same qualities that got the rest of the group over as well.
That’s actually not my biggest complaint with them. Their personality is, followed closely by their in-ring. But I can understand why you think otherwise, based on how this thread has gone. I’ve hammered home the copy cat stuff, so it seems like that’s my biggest gripe. That’s actually secondary. Or tertiary, really.
I find them both to be terribly boring personas. I watched what they did with TNA and ROH and mockingly referred to them as “The Rancho Cucamonga Boys” for months after they cut that silly promo/segment with TNA highlighting them coming from that city. I joked for what felt like months about how the most interesting thing about them is that they come from a place called Rancho Cucamonga, as if anyone should actually care about that.
I also find their style to be just as grating. “Indy-riffic”. Everything feels like it’s done at 2x the speed, for the sake of speed (and only for the sake of speed), and the psychology aspect of wrestling that I love the most — the actual story-telling — gets intentionally thrown by the wayside in favor of bigger, more elaborate spots, which for me, always tested the limits of my suspension of disbelief with them. I had the same issues with guys like Amazing Red for similar reasons. Bad selling in wrestling is basically a total turn off for me, and my experience with the Bucks was that they were bad sellers. The icing on the rotting cake was the attitude I inferred from their professional reaction to those complaints, where they basically doubled down and made it worse. Bigger spots, more and more “insider” injections to their characters and less and less of an appreciation for the story-telling they were being asked to take part in.
Nash and Jarrett have both given approval and voiced their adoration for BC, and by extension the BC gimmick that you're crying is only the Young Bucks ripping them off. Everything is done so tongue-in-cheek, how are you getting the impression that they are claiming it's theirs? You are getting awfully protective about something even the people actually involved - the people who might actually have a valid reason to cry about it like you have - don't fucking care about.
So what? This is an appeal to authority. If Bret Hart, Sting, Randy Savage and Ricky Steamboat all said the same thing, it still wouldn’t mean much to me. They are industry peers. They have opinions just like you and I. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don’t. In this case, big a fan of Kevin Nash as I am, I disagree. Just as I disagreed with him on Chris Sabin.
And again, as I said earlier, these are all complaints from me, as a fan. I find it insulting. Personally. Even if Nash doesn’t. I just can’t appreciate what they bring, because I view it as intellectually dishonest. That doesn't case to be the case when TNA is on, either. I'm just as critical of bad ideas of theirs as I am of anything else I watch. I just so happen to basically only watch TNA these days (and NJPW's AXS TV broadcast), so it makes it look like that might be the case. But I was and still am quite critical of when they are doing something that isn't working, or isn't good. Matt Hardy as WHC, for example.
Well, you keep using quotes, and referencing a very specific issue as if there were, I dunno, an interview or video or tweet or some other source where you're pulling this quote from that you keep hammering on about. If it's not sinking in, maybe it's because you're terrible at communicating.
I’m not using direct quotes. I’m talking about my inferences. When I say they fall back on “we’re just joking”, I’m talking about the inferences I get based on their responses to criticisms. Inferences I’m pulling together based on incidents just like the one described in the OP, commentary attached to their matches, little mannerisms they have in interviews and on television, etc.
But you are correct in that I didn’t communicate that particular point properly.
Indeed. The fan who routinely criticizes bad ideas. The same TNA fan who, for the first time since they were picked up by Spike TV all those years ago, stopped watching their product entirely for
months when the World Title series was going on because I grew so bored with it.
More saltiness. You take this way too personally, as always. Oh wait, I'm the angry one, though.
Of course I take it personally. You made it personal when you criticized my character in your second or third response in this thread. First stone came from your hands, not mine. I criticized the Bucks. You criticized me.
