I have one question ....
- Thread starter Ambiguous Turd
- Start date
So, just so I have this straight, because I don't agree with you, Hogan, and McMahon, I don't have the ability to think for myself. Just making sure I've ot that right.
What a presumptuous and incredibly incorrect thing to say. I love how xenophobic you are about wrestling, as though wrestling only exists in the United States. Clearly you don't know very much about Japanese wrestling or you'd know how wrong of a statement that is. Some things are more important than making money in the business; like pride in your work. But I guess because Misawa never worked for McMahon, his opinion means nothing.
Did I ever say that my personal preferences mean more than words of Hogan/McMahon/Flair? Nope, not once. What I did say was that my personal preferences do not depend solely on what those men say. Which is my point.
I'll choose to like what I want to like, and I don't really give a shit if Vince McMahon agrees with me or not Sly.
Neither am I. Sly seems to think I hate things that draw. I don't.
Do you hate pencils?
Super Crazy
CABS ARE HEEEERREEE!!
A muscle buster would probably make Hogan have even more trouble walking.
Nope, you missed the point. You combined two things that aren't related.
What I said was you want to believe what YOU think is good wrestling over what is actually good wrestling, and you stay in your little shell because you'd havte to step outside that shell and admit you're wrong, even when the successful wrestlers and promoters tell you that you are wrong.
Quit playing along with the thought process of 95% of the IWC, and think for yourself and realize what wrestling is really about.
No one says you can't be rpoud of your work, but if you're work isn't drawing money, what's there to be proud of? An intricate choreographed dance that nobody cares about?
In essence, yes. By saying that good wrestling is not determined by the money it draws, you most certainly are.
That's great. I don't give a damn what you like Like anything you want.
Just don't try and say what you like and don't like has any bearing on whether or not it is good.
But, then again, I've explained this to you multiple times and you still don't want to accept it.
Explain to me what I don't know about wrestling Sly. Do I doubt the greatness of Hogan? No. Do I shit on the product when it draws? No.
There is no definitive answer as to what "good wrestling" is Sly. I know you like to think there is, but there isn't. It's all subjective. All of it.
In a matter of words, yes. Your workrate, the matches you put on. Is a dancers talents irrelevant if she/he doesn't make it to Broadway?
That's perfectly fine that you require matches you enjoy to draw. I don't. What I don't see here is why that's a problem that I have a different opinion of wrestling than you. You tell me to think for myself, and yet that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm forming my own opinions on what I see based solely on how much it entertains ME and me alone. If it doesn't entertain me, I'm not interested.
But, just because I'm not interested in something, doesn't mean it isn't good wrestling. The Wrestlemania 6 match with Hogan and Warrior has bored me to tears the last few times I've watched it, but I'm perfectly capable of recognizing how important and great of a match it is. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm not capable of that.
Way to jump from one thing to a completely other and unrelated thing. Good wrestling does not always draw. I don't see how you can think that it always does. The WWF couldn't draw a dime in 95-96, but that doesn't mean that the HBK-Hart matches aren't great wrestling matches. Drawing certainly is involved in what determines wrestling, but it is not the ONLY thing that factors into that equation, which has been my point this entire time.
Then why are you responding?
And I've explained to you multiple times that I'm perfectly capable of being objective. I've given you an example of that in this post alone (the WM 6 match). I can do more if you'd like. I've been far more entertained by the undercard matches of the last few WWE PPVs than their main events with Cena and Orton, but I'm capable of recognizing that the Cena-Orton matches were the better ones.
I have zero idea where you get these ideas about my opinions Sly, because they're almost always misguided and/or wrong.
No, it's not. It's very simple what good wrestling is...wrestling that entertains to the point that it draws money. It's that simple.
If you can't make people care about you, then you have no talent.
If you're good in the ring, then people will care about you. It's that simple. But if people don't give a fuck about you, then how can you be good, when the WHOLE purpose of pro wrestling is to make people pay to see you?
This sentence right here shows just how little you get it. And I'm not going to bother responding to your nonsense any more.
Like I said originally...when you understand the difference between personal preference and objective quality, you'll understand Razor's statement. It's clear you do not.
You've got to be fucking kidding me Sly, did I not just give you TWO examples of being objective about wrestling? Yep, I did, you chose to ignore them. Whatever.
Personal Preference: I don't enjoy this match between Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.
Objective Quality: I recognize that this is a great, great wrestling match.
You're right, I don't understand the difference.
Personal Preference: I don't enjoy this match between Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.
Objective Quality: I recognize that this is a great, great wrestling match.
You're right, I don't understand the difference.
Did you? Was it before or after the comment I said I wasn't going to read anymore? Because I really didn't read anymore after that.
Great...so what are you trying to tell me?Personal Preference: I don't enjoy this match between Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.
Objective Quality: I recognize that this is a great, great wrestling match.
You're right, I don't understand the difference.
You claim I don't know the difference between personal preference and objectively critiquing the quality of a match. I just showed to you that I do in fact know the difference.
Are you drunk or something? Either that or you're just choosing to ignore what I'm telling you.
Are you drunk or something? Either that or you're just choosing to ignore what I'm telling you.
Minor League Brian
Master of the Legendary Triple Post
Sidious, I'll spank that ass anytime you want.
Then how can you claim wrestling which draws isn't good wrestling? If I book a program and fans don't come to watch it, then it's clear it's not an entertaining program and thus, not good wrestling.
I fail to see how you can say differently.
When have I EVER made that claim Sly? Never. Not once.
Again, for the ten thousandth time, the only "claim" I've made is that drawing isn't the ONLY thing to take into account.
I'm not saying differently. I've never said differently. You just seem to have it stuck in your head that I hate anything that draws, despite what I keep telling you again and again and again.
But it is. Showing me a program that doesn't draw, and I'll show you one that isn't entertaining.
Now, understand when I say that, I mean on the overall scale, not on the individual scale.
When have I ever said you hate anything that draws? I never said that, are you high?
Well, it's Saturday night, so probably, but still. My point remains the same.
Well to be fair it could be a Tuesday night and I'd likely still be roasting up, but that's besides the point.
What about independent promotions? In your opinion is it even possible for them to put on a good wrestling show if they don't draw thousands? Exactly how much does a show need to "draw" for it to be good Sly?
What about independent promotions? In your opinion is it even possible for them to put on a good wrestling show if they don't draw thousands? Exactly how much does a show need to "draw" for it to be good Sly?
I think you'd be in favor of adding an eighth day to the week, just to have another night to smoke.
Entertainment value is relative to the promotion. For example, if I'm running a promotion that normally gets 150 people to the gate, I run a program between two wrestlers and for the duration of that program, I draw 350 people, then that's a great program. It drew, and was obviously entertaining. And, of course, the reverse is true.
But, on the whole, the WWE is obviously more entertaining than my promotion, because they'll put 350 people in the bathroom at the same time I'm holding my card. Which means the WWE is obviously more entertaining, and thus, better wrestling.
All right, I suppose that makes sense. You have to take into consideration the long time fanbase of the WWE and the massive amount of money they have as well. Who knows what would happen if there were five new promotions with the same kind of money and star power that the WWE has.
Glad to see you're don't despise all indy wrestling (aside from ECW you heartless bastard). Dragon Gate USA's first PPV drew very well considering it's fanbase and being extremely new, so I can safely tell you it's a great wrestling PPV without you shitting on me because you hate flippykicks.
Glad to see you're don't despise all indy wrestling (aside from ECW you heartless bastard). Dragon Gate USA's first PPV drew very well considering it's fanbase and being extremely new, so I can safely tell you it's a great wrestling PPV without you shitting on me because you hate flippykicks.
Good Lord...a compromise? An understanding? Is the end of the world truly upon us at last?
I have to tell you, it was pretty awesome to watch.