[Official] All Zack Ryder Discussion (DO NOT SPAM!) | Page 5 | WrestleZone Forums

[Official] All Zack Ryder Discussion (DO NOT SPAM!)

no scofield, your argument is NOT valid.

you may think you one-upped me here, but you just took the easy way out.

you didn't respond to anything RYDER related.

since we both spend some time posting threads on this forum, it appears that you are just as passionate about wrestling as i am, so what's your response to my post? as the O.P of your thread, i wanna hear your response as a ryder fan
 
Okay, first I want to state I've been a fan of the Major Brother since his debut in WWECW. I enjoyed his work with Hawkins later as the Edgeheads and I've never watched one of his youtube videos. But, I am a fan of Zack Ryder. He has room to improve and I do not think he's particularly bad in any department. This ofcourse is my opinion, as the guy with a hundred wrestling names pointed out an opinion I cannot agree with (Lesnar had NO mic skills at all, which is why Paul Heyman did his talking for him for awhile.) AND I am/was a Brock Lesnar fan. I think it is only fair that my opinions should also be entertained as being my own personal opinion.

Now normally I don't like the comedy characters and was very disappointed when Nick Dinsmore debuted as Eugene instead of his Lords of Wrestling personality when he was teamed with Rob Conway. Nick Dinsmore could carry a match to all of your previous points sir, but as Eugene he played into the character and his matches were different. Different strokes, for different folks. Zack is still young, and he has a very likable quality to him gimmick aside. He's the ultimate underdog (not Rey Mysterio who manages to almost always win).

Zack Ryder serves a purpose, and despite my hatred of comedy characters as well as babyface characters, I am quite pleased that Zack Ryder is someone my entire household likes to cheer for, including my 3yr old son who loves the WWWYKI. I could also argue that his mic work isn't that bad when you consider the character he is playing, and that he remains in that Fast Times at Ridgemont Spicolli sounding voice/character.

This is all only my opinion however, and as always the US title has been about giving a guy a chance to run with a belt, usually catapulting them into the World title scene, or testing out the waters on how they would handle themselves as a champion.
 
-like i said, WCW offered bret more money, initially, but bret turned them down. instead, he wanted to remain loyal to vince, and SOLIDIFY his legacy in the WWF. he initially agreed to stay with the WWF for lesser money to do that.
The 20 year offer was from Vince...More money offer a longer period of time than WCW offered..
-"nick dismore can wrestle" you said....HAHAHAHAHAHA....this guy was horrible in the ring and his stupid ****** gimmick made him even more ANNOYING to watch
I take it you never went to any OVW shows. Dinsmore was excellent. Lot of good matches against Prototype, Leviathan, and Rob Conway among others. Also his Lord of the Rings tag team had some epic matches with the Minnesota Stretching Crew... His gimmick was horrible, but his work in OVW was excellent.
-HOGAN and warrior were NOT wrestlers. they were ENTERTAINERS. bret hart was a WRESTLER. STING was a WRESTLER. STEAMBOAT was a WRESTLER. two different breeds in the same era.
So the most famous wrestler of all time isn't a "wrestler". Wonder how he lasted so long in the AWA? Just amazing that you'd say Sting is a wrestler but his original tag team partner wasn't.
-the guys i mentioned (hart, steamboat, guerrero, flair, etc were the last of their generation before wrestling started to emphasize 'entertainment' more than wrestling.
When wrestling started emphasizing entertainment? I take it you've never heard of "Gorgeous" George or "Superstar" Billy Graham? Take it you never watched any of Andre's matches in the 70s? You understand that in the 80s, Flair was considered too flashy, a real change from guys like Terry Funk, The Briscoes, Harley Race, etc. What about Lawler's famous feud with Andy Kaufman? Wrestling has always been about showmanship and entertainment value. There's only ever been one litmus test: Who puts the asses in the seats. That's it.
-LESNAR may have "couldn't handle the road and went home" but shit, in his short stint, this guy was the REAL DEAL who was one of the BEST ever in all aspects of professional wrestling---in the ring, and on the mic. you CAN'T deny that fact. he was a MEGA TOP DRAW, AND he COULD WRESTLE. one of a kind. no one in the history of the business can match the talents of brock lesnar----and thats a FACT.
No one can match Brock's talents in the ring or mic? Weird cause I can think of numerous that could do both. Flair for one. In his prime, he'd have wrestled circles around Brock then cut a promo that would have left him speechless. You do remember they needed Heyman to manage him because of his lack of mic skills right? As far as mega-top draw goes. Not even close. He was behind Austin and Rock both in terms of merchandise sales and ratings spikes, and that was just for the time period he was there. Compare it to the over-all numbers, he's far behind Hogan, Flair, Austin, Rock, and even Cena today...He was also involved in one of the worst matches in Mania history. His match against Goldberg made Hogan/Warrior look like Savage/Steamboat in comparison.
something zack ryder NEVER will be or could do.
What will Zack never do? Get the world handed to him and leave within two years? You're right, Zack has already been in the company a lot longer than that.
-i admire that ryder made his own opportunity when one wasn't available. i'll give him that. but just because, all of a sudden his youtube show became somewhat 'popular', that doesn't mean he deserved to be pushed to the moon. that's one of my main gripes with the guy. he STILL LACKS the obvious talents you need in the business----WRESTLING ABILITY and MIC SKILLS
Pushed to the moon? You mean actually being on tv, being fodder in some Cena storylines, and winning a mid-card title? If he won the Rumble this year and headlined Mania, I could see your gripe, however he's literally in a similar spot as Billy Gunn was in 1999... That's not being pushed to the moon at all.
-JBL being the 'best heel in the past decade' ...LOL...he was one of the WORST heels ever who generated bad-heat. he was the michael cole of his time. he was flat out annoying on the mic, and his ring work was unbearable. he couldn't have a ***** match, let alone a ***match, no matter who you paired him with.

There have been exactly two five star matches in the WWE in the last 15 years. HBK/Taker at Bad Blood 97 and Punk/Cena at MITB 11. So there are currently 3 wrestlers on the roster who have had that distinction. JBL had a lot of heat and there is a reason why WWE had their choice as "face of the company" go over JBL at Mania. They could have chosen anyone and went with the guy they knew could get the response needed. And talk about a guy who wrestled because he loved it. He was a multi-millionaire outside of wrestling still going to the ring because it was what he loved.

Again you're missing the point... The entire point of wrestling is to make money... How do you not get this?
 
KLIQ69,

you said: "there have been exactly 2 ***** matches in the WWE in the last 15 years????!!!!"

you just lost all your credibility right there my friend.

let me give you a short history lesson:

bret hart vs shawn michaels -wrestlemania 12 1996 - 60 minute ironman match *****
bret hart vs steve austin - wrestlemania 13 1997 - submission match *****
bret hart vs steve austin - survivor series 1996 - *****
steve austin vs triple h - no way out 2001 - 3 stages of hell match *****
brock lesnar vs undertaker - no mercy 2002 - hell in the cell match *****
brock lesnar vs eddie guerrero - no way out 2004 -wwe title match *****
rey mysterio vs eddie guerrero - Halloween Havoc 1997 - title vs mask match *****
shawn michaels vs undertaker - wrestlemania 25 *****
brock lesnar vs kurt angle - wrestlemania 19 2003 - wwe title ***** (botched shooting star press, but still *****)

other CREDIBLE wrestling writers, insiders, fans will attest to that list. there's a ton more but i'm not gonna go that far. i rest my case on that one....

but first, get your facts right on the bret hart WCW contract case. WWF offered lesser money, than WCW. vince gave hart the option to take more money from WCW, but hart rejected it. he wanted to stay loyal to WWE. he agreed to a 20 year deal worth lesser per year than WCW was offering. he wanted to cement his wrestling legacy in the WWF. it was only when vince wanted out of the contract, thats when bret jumped ship. (read his book)

-i was NEVER a fan of nick dinsmore. never watched other organizations besides wwe, wcw, ecw, tna....could care less what he done in the bush leagues. he NEVER performed well on the higher level of the WWE. his stupid ****** gimmick just killed it for me.

-sting is a better performer in the ring and on the mic than the ultimate warrior---obviously. the WWE made warrior more of a cartoon character than wrestler.

-'wrestler' is the mainstream term for any performer in the wrestling business. but those on the inside (and us wrestling marks) know who the real WRESTLERS (hart, austin, HBK, guerrero,etc) are, and who are the ENTERTAINERS (godfather, goldust, doink the clown...etc)

-sure heyman was brock's mouthpiece in the beginning. it added to his mystique of a brute monster heel. but he didnt need him for long now did he? he was fine on his own.

-and when i say no one can match the talents of brock lesnar, i'm talking the complete package, the freak of nature, the 6'3" 266 pounder who moves lightning quick, monstrous power, superb wrestling ability, and shooting star press capability. what man his size can do what he can do at such a high level?? NO ONE. no one in the wrestling business has come close----and thats a FACT.

-hey brock was here for only 2 years and he left. but he indelibly left his MARK in the wrestling business now didnt he? he accomplished more than anyone in that short 2 year span. a short WWE career, but one helluva career. pushed to the moon but he DESERVED it---- he was an undefeated NCAA wrestling champion and plus he was the total package: the look, the wrestling skill, the mic skills, the charisma, the IT factor...
(let's see how many ***** matches has lesnar had?? damn, thats pretty good for a 2 year stint. and ryder?? ZERO)

and you better believe people wanna see him come back---even non-lesnar fans. he is a TOP DRAW. maybe not as big as austin or the rock, but he equals PPV buyrates....just ask the UFC. now thats STAR power.

-you can't compare zack ryder to brock lesnar...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ryder does NOT belong in the same sentence. ryder is NO where near as talented as brock lesnar. lesnar was one of a kind---he DESERVED to be pushed to the moon-----

ryder on the other hand, does NOT deserve his current push right now . i've said it a hundred times already, a 'popular' youtube show does NOT equal championship material. his horrible acting, his NO mic skills , his weak wrestling ability..... and not to mention that awful backstage skit with eve changing a tire----that show by the way which revolved around ryder (6 separate ryder segments) was one of the LOWEST rated raw episodes in the history of raw. yea, what a draw he is.

-and jbl...give me a break...this guy was horrible in the ring. never a decent match out of the guy. he just got heat from the crowd, and i'm not talking good heat like NWO heat or ziggler heat, i'm talking 'michael cole, annoying stop talking, go away' heat. any other wresting fans can ATTEST to that. he was more tolerable as a member of the APA with farooq
 
-when has ryder ever produced a quality ***** match? NEVER

ryder does NOT deserve his current push and tv time.

In all fairness, how many people can actually say they've put on a five- star match????

Zack realised it was either get over or get released so he went out and gathered his own fanbase through Youtube. Which takes a lot of talent with hi goofy gimmick. Zack DOES indeed deserve his push and TV time. At the start of the year, he was one of those who people aren't sure are still in the WWE. Now every fan is aware of his presence.
 
no scofield, your argument is NOT valid.

you may think you one-upped me here, but you just took the easy way out.

you didn't respond to anything RYDER related.

since we both spend some time posting threads on this forum, it appears that you are just as passionate about wrestling as i am, so what's your response to my post? as the O.P of your thread, i wanna hear your response as a ryder fan

As a Ryder fan? I'm sorry I must have missed something that said I was a Ryder fan. Maybe I appreciate what HIRED WWE talent do to get to where they are at regardless of where they are on the card. If anything I am more of a Ted Di Biase fan over Zack Ryder but then again I don't have to explain or argue this.

Arguing the same old shit is like arguing with an IDIOT. I made my points & you still persist on with you "Valid" wrestling points that he has no wrestling talent bla bla bla.

Just because this is the internet doesn't mean you have to get on the bandwagon with tearing wrestlers a new asshole thinking you know everything bad about them and what makes a good wrestler in todays business because you my friend if you knew what a good wrestler or hell a good entertainer was in todays business you would either be 1. Executive President of Talent Relations in charge of hiring talent and bringing them up to the Main Roster or 2. You would be a WWE performer yourself already on the main roster.

This is going to be my last reply to you as really its becoming a waste of my time even responding to you. Myself as a wrestling fan not a Internet Wrestling Fan, I have no real huge time favorites for wrestlers (AustinHartLesnarAngleTaz? anyone) because I appreciate most wrestlers face or heel for what they bring to the table in the wrestling business. Yes there are some that just ain't the "IWC" fave or even for that fact the crowds fave but myself as a true fan of the wrestling business look at the positives & not just shit over someone and talk so called "valid" points on why you think someone doesn't deserve a job with WWE, because again if that person doesn't deserve a job with WWE...my question is where is your job with WWE?
 
its ok SCOFIELD.

you can critically argue your points here. we're both wrestling fans.

i'm just trying to have an INTELLIGENT debate .

and why so much hostility? i've NEVER insulted you on this forum.

but you went and called me an 'idiot.' come on man, where is the maturity there for someone who "has a business to run.?"

all i ask is a valid argument to 'DEFEND ZACK RYDER' (which was your original thread). i mean, YOU started this thread.... yet there was NO rebuttal to counter-argue my valid points. after all, this is a discussion forum, right?

all you did was SIDESTEP my posts , which is ok. if you never respond to this thats ok. i'll take that as proving I AM RIGHT. i mean, there was absolutely NO defense of zack ryder here, just a lot of insulting from you. i'm not gonna take that low road.

as for the rest of you zack ryder fans out there.....what do you have to say to my posts? a curious wrestling fan here wants to know...
 
Again, it's one of those arguments you can never end because it's all about opinion. I have a vastly different opinion then most fans on what I consider a good talent. For instance, the wrestlers you spoke of AHLHBKT as being real wrestlers, Austin was a really technically based wrestler for awhile, but the end of his career he was more of an entertainer. Goldust is a vastly underated wrestling talent. Dustin can really wrestle and possesses such a good ring generalship as well as selling ability that he often helps elevate younger talent. Remember who started Sheamus' super push?

Again however, this relies entirely on the debaters opinion. Once again I will state that I believe Zack Ryder possesses the talent and the tool set to eventually (notice the word eventually) become a real star. What I have to ask however, is if Austin remained the ringmaster and never took the initiative himself to break out with his AUSTIN 3:16 would you have him as part of your name? Steve Austin admits in one of his DVDs that if it wasn't for that line he delivered he was already nearly out the door. I could argue Austin's predicament wasn't much different then Ryder's prior to his recent push. I imagine, this is partly why you can appreciate and respect what Ryder did to get noticed. Now I know comparing Austin and Ryder ends there, as at that time Austin was a vastly superior wrestler but was far less over with the fans then Ryder was prior to his yt show.

I can agree however, even as a Z-Ry fan that he has begun to get a little to excessive on the TV time for someone in his spot on the roster, but I do believe he deserves some TV time to continue to build his character and evolve it some. Z-Ry makes a very solid underdog that I want to get behind. I was glad to see him get the US title but I think they should have worked his run a little better. I didn't really like his near SuperCenaOrtonHogan multiple finisher kick out from Swagger (at least that's how the results I read on WZ portrayed it) but if they allowed him to sneak out a few wins similar to the way Rey use to pick up some of his wins in WCW then he could have worked well for a US champion. They could have gone further and used him to eventually put over a very promising and talented heel to be the one who finally just destroyed him. No superman for Zack, but the underdog who gets the crap kicked out of him only to sneak a win over a too cocky opponent regularly would have really given the average fan a reason to get behind him. At this point however none of that would work the same anymore.

Now please don't mistake any of my comments as me trying to be an all knowing god of the wrestling industry, merely take them as a life-long fan who knows what he likes. I can be prone to typical internet hate similar to your average smark just as the next guy but I often try to have a reason for disliking a superstar. The easiest way to explain this, is by bringing up a popular subject in John Cena. Cena is undoubtedly marketable and though I have a huge amount of respect for everything the man has done inside and outside of the ring I am not a fan of his. I blame it on WWE booking, and the tired Superman gimmick as well as him often going over people I liked a lot better then him.

Anyway sorry if I got of tangent here, but what I'm trying to say AustinHartLesnarHBKTaz80 is that though I understand and even respect your opinion, I cannot agree with it. I realize I have nothing "factual" to back up my point, but in the context of an opinion it's really rather difficult to do so. However, as a result of this I also have to say it's difficult to offer any real valid points on either end of the coin when it comes to opinions.

I hope I have been able to satisfy your curiosity.
 
its ok SCOFIELD.

you can critically argue your points here. we're both wrestling fans.

i'm just trying to have an INTELLIGENT debate .

and why so much hostility? i've NEVER insulted you on this forum.

but you went and called me an 'idiot.' come on man, where is the maturity there for someone who "has a business to run.?"

all i ask is a valid argument to 'DEFEND ZACK RYDER' (which was your original thread). i mean, YOU started this thread.... yet there was NO rebuttal to counter-argue my valid points. after all, this is a discussion forum, right?

all you did was SIDESTEP my posts , which is ok. if you never respond to this thats ok. i'll take that as proving I AM RIGHT. i mean, there was absolutely NO defense of zack ryder here, just a lot of insulting from you. i'm not gonna take that low road.

as for the rest of you zack ryder fans out there.....what do you have to say to my posts? a curious wrestling fan here wants to know...

Actually this thread got merged in with a main Zack Ryder thread because he is a hot topic for discussion right now.

As for the idiot response business or no business maturity or no maturity, I think most people will back me up not just on this site but in real life that your opinions regarding Zack Ryder are some short of idiotic. Trust me if you said what you said on here about Zack Ryder to a seasoned general of the business like Lance Storm, he would most likely tell you your an idiot also. You say stupid stuff, expect to be told that. There are alot more indecent things one could have labelled you as.

Yes I did create a In Defense Thread of Zack Ryder but thats for valid points. If you would like I will go back 2,3 4 pages to find your initial post regarding your irrational ill thought posts on Zack Ryder. In fact I will. You bring up your post as a flaming idiot and when someone responds back to you informing you of that you don't like it. I am not playing to your mind games.
 
KLIQ69,

you said: "there have been exactly 2 ***** matches in the WWE in the last 15 years????!!!!"

you just lost all your credibility right there my friend.

let me give you a short history lesson:

bret hart vs shawn michaels -wrestlemania 12 1996 - 60 minute ironman match *****
bret hart vs steve austin - wrestlemania 13 1997 - submission match *****
bret hart vs steve austin - survivor series 1996 - *****
steve austin vs triple h - no way out 2001 - 3 stages of hell match *****
brock lesnar vs undertaker - no mercy 2002 - hell in the cell match *****
brock lesnar vs eddie guerrero - no way out 2004 -wwe title match *****
rey mysterio vs eddie guerrero - Halloween Havoc 1997 - title vs mask match *****
shawn michaels vs undertaker - wrestlemania 25 *****
brock lesnar vs kurt angle - wrestlemania 19 2003 - wwe title ***** (botched shooting star press, but still *****)

other CREDIBLE wrestling writers, insiders, fans will attest to that list. there's a ton more but i'm not gonna go that far. i rest my case on that one....
I'm going off of Dave Meltzer's list... Generally a good place to start. Some people just have lower standards than others. Even Bret himself is a fan of Meltzer's ratings.
http://starratingslist.blogspot.com/2009/09/wrestling-observer-5-star-ratings-list.html
but first, get your facts right on the bret hart WCW contract case. WWF offered lesser money, than WCW. vince gave hart the option to take more money from WCW, but hart rejected it. he wanted to stay loyal to WWE. he agreed to a 20 year deal worth lesser per year than WCW was offering. he wanted to cement his wrestling legacy in the WWF. it was only when vince wanted out of the contract, thats when bret jumped ship. (read his book)
It's widely known Bret turned down Vince's first offer. The offer was made before WM12. The rumored figures were 750,000 for 5 years. Bret instead began talks with WCW. WCW offered Bret 1.5 million for 5 years. Double Vince's offer. Vince then counter offered with a 20 year deal worth 1 million per. Bret signed with Vince, not out of loyalty, but because he wanted the long-term deal. Total compensation of WCW's deal is roughly 7.5 million, Vince's was 20 million. If Bret wanted to stay because of loyalty, he'd have taken the first deal and not negotiated in the first place. Vince ended up wanting out of the deal because he realized how little Bret meant to the ratings and attendance figures. He couldn't justify paying a guy a million a year that couldn't draw.
-i was NEVER a fan of nick dinsmore. never watched other organizations besides wwe, wcw, ecw, tna....could care less what he done in the bush leagues. he NEVER performed well on the higher level of the WWE. his stupid ****** gimmick just killed it for me.
OVW during that time had larger audiences at their shows than TNA does now. It was THE developmental territory. Dinsmore carried their heavyweight title when Orton, Cena, Brock, Benjamin, and Batista were all on the roster. Like a lot of guys, the gimmick they get stuck with ends up really costing them.
-sting is a better performer in the ring and on the mic than the ultimate warrior---obviously. the WWE made warrior more of a cartoon character than wrestler.
Except Warrior performed in front of a larger crowd than Sting ever did. Especially in the early 90s.
-'wrestler' is the mainstream term for any performer in the wrestling business. but those on the inside (and us wrestling marks) know who the real WRESTLERS (hart, austin, HBK, guerrero,etc) are, and who are the ENTERTAINERS (godfather, goldust, doink the clown...etc)
Do you really understand the complete foolishness coming out of your mouth? Again I say, according to you, the most recognizable wrestler in the world is not considered a "wrestler"? How illogical is that.
-sure heyman was brock's mouthpiece in the beginning. it added to his mystique of a brute monster heel. but he didnt need him for long now did he? he was fine on his own.
Quite a while and I wouldn't say he was fine on his own. He was regularly made to look like the weak sister during dueling promos.
-and when i say no one can match the talents of brock lesnar, i'm talking the complete package, the freak of nature, the 6'3" 266 pounder who moves lightning quick, monstrous power, superb wrestling ability, and shooting star press capability. what man his size can do what he can do at such a high level?? NO ONE. no one in the wrestling business has come close----and thats a FACT.
Guess you never watch Big Van Vader. Or hell Mike Awesome for that matter. Vader was unbelievably quick, had massive power, and despite being over 400 lbs could do a perfect moonsault. As for Awesome, go check out some of his FMW matches to see what he could do.
-hey brock was here for only 2 years and he left. but he indelibly left his MARK in the wrestling business now didnt he? he accomplished more than anyone in that short 2 year span. a short WWE career, but one helluva career. pushed to the moon but he DESERVED it---- he was an undefeated NCAA wrestling champion and plus he was the total package: the look, the wrestling skill, the mic skills, the charisma, the IT factor...
(let's see how many ***** matches has lesnar had?? damn, thats pretty good for a 2 year stint. and ryder?? ZERO)
Again, according to Meltzer, Brock had the same amount Ryder has... Zero. How can a guy deserve it based on outside accomplishments? Isn't that your beef with Ryder is a Youtube show? Well if a youtube show should have no bearing on a guy's career, neither should he achievements in an unrelated venue. Yes Brock left his mark on wrestling and left a horrible taste in the mouth of long-term fans. His unwillingness to put over others after he was given all that he was given was unbelievably tragic. People bitch about Hogan not putting people over, but I can count over a dozen more guys Hogan put over big than Lesnar ever did.
and you better believe people wanna see him come back---even non-lesnar fans. he is a TOP DRAW. maybe not as big as austin or the rock, but he equals PPV buyrates....just ask the UFC. now thats STAR power.
Unfortunately for you, a lot of people do not want him back. His attitude and last match really turned people against him. Actually Lesnar's impact on UFC buyrates were in the 7.5-10% margin, not much higher than a normal 3-5% margin of error fluctuation. I won't deny he had some impact, but to even mention him in the same sentence as Rock or Austin is foolish.
-you can't compare zack ryder to brock lesnar...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ryder does NOT belong in the same sentence. ryder is NO where near as talented as brock lesnar. lesnar was one of a kind---he DESERVED to be pushed to the moon-----

ryder on the other hand, does NOT deserve his current push right now . i've said it a hundred times already, a 'popular' youtube show does NOT equal championship material. his horrible acting, his NO mic skills , his weak wrestling ability..... and not to mention that awful backstage skit with eve changing a tire----that show by the way which revolved around ryder (6 separate ryder segments) was one of the LOWEST rated raw episodes in the history of raw. yea, what a draw he is.
Refresh my memory, when did I say Ryder was a draw? I said he gets a reaction from the crowd (he does) and moves merchandise (he's been in the top 10 for merchandise sales for the past few months)
[/quote]
-and jbl...give me a break...this guy was horrible in the ring. never a decent match out of the guy. he just got heat from the crowd, and i'm not talking good heat like NWO heat or ziggler heat, i'm talking 'michael cole, annoying stop talking, go away' heat. any other wresting fans can ATTEST to that. he was more tolerable as a member of the APA with farooq[/QUOTE]
You are very good at opinions, but very lousy at facts. JBL had real heat, people hated the arrogance and his actions. Go watch his Mania match with Cena again or his promos with Eddie before their strap match. Oh and speaking of the strap match, it was above average. Probably a 2.5-3.0 match. Good back in forth, some creative spots, and a lot of heat from the crowd. He also carried the title for a considerable length of time and was put in a world title match at Mania because of it.

The reason why I rank him at or near the top for heels in the last decade is because he was a true heel. He didn't elicit cheers, he didn't try to be cool, he was very traditional in his promos, presence, and even his action in the ring. Did he often go for some cheap heat... Of course. That is what traditional heels often did.

I finish again with the first rule of professional wrestling: The only thing that matters is how much money you bring into the company. How is it so hard for you to grasp?
 
as for the rest of you zack ryder fans out there.....what do you have to say to my posts? a curious wrestling fan here wants to know...

Your posts are unreadable. Seriously, I have to commend everyone who actually took the time to sift through all of that garbage and respond to your obvious trolling. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you clearly don't take yourself seriously?

Now I'm not a huge Ryder fan, but I like the guy. I think he's a solid worker, as evident by his near perfect selling during his match with Kane this week(though I do think he needs to work on his facial expressions whilst selling.) He's a solid talker when he's comfortable, but I'm not sure that he's quite found his comfort zone on live TV just yet. He seemed a lot more comfortable stating his own words on his YT show and while I think the company as a whole is way too strict when it comes to having their wrestlers say exactly what's scripted for them, He's going to have to overcome this if he wants to stick around.

Most of all, he's a likable guy. Sure, he's goofy and his gimmick is pretty ridiculous, but I like guys like this. I can't stand this idea that everyone needs to be serious at every moment when it comes to professional wrestling. Guys like Ryder, Brodus, and Santino are awesome for lightening the mood a little bit. My wife is a regular viewer nowadays and her 3 favorite wrestlers are CM Punk, Santino, and Zack Ryder. They're also perfect as fodder for heat-less heels to garner some surefire boos. Ryder has played a tremendous part in getting Kane over as a heel when everyone wanted to cheer him with the mask back on.

In closing, your name is stupid.
 
KLIQ69,

first off, thank you KLIQ69 for continuing an INTELLIGENT DEBATE here. unlike SCOFIELD who continues to INSULT and not back up the thread he helped to create. ok here we go:

-meltzer's ratings system has been in question and mass debate for years...although he is a highly recognized wrestling writer, his system needs major overhaul as many diehard fans can attest.

i mean, he gives cena / punk from MITB 2011 *****??!!! cena in a ***** match??!!! i mean, dude, it was a great match, but not a ***** match.

meltzer never gave HBK / undertaker from WM 25 *****, nor did he give HBK / triple H/ benoit from WM 20 *****, nor did he give Jericho / HBK from WM 19 *****, nor did he give rey mysterio / eddie guerrero from halloween havoc 97 *****----these were ALL classic, legendary matches....., i can go on and on with much greater matches than cena / punk from MITB 2011.

if you a wrestling fan who've seen a lot of matches, you KNOW these afformentioned matches i named above were much BETTER than cena / punk, as great as it was. now , you tell me, in your opinion, is meltzer's 'coveted' system of ***** matches truly accurate? me, I think not.

-as for nick dinsmore, tough shit for him, he got a shitty gimmick. never was a fan anyway. to me, what matters is what he did on the bigger stage of the WWE and he failed to impress.

-my arguments first and foremost, are based on wrestling ability IN the ring, mic skills, charisma, and look. as far as these 4 characteristics, sting got warrior beat.

-vader. yea vader was pretty quick, he had power, and he could do a moonsault. 3 out of 4. what he did NOT have was the technical wrestling ability that lesnar possessed.

-mike awesome. awesome was great. he was powerful, he would splash off the top rope, and he was a major spotfest with powerbombs and slams. his match with taz/masato tanaka from ecw 99 (forgot the name of the ppv, but taz's last ECW match) was one of the greatest ECW matches of all time. again though, he was not as quick as lesnar, and, he did NOT have the technical wrestling ability of lesnar.

lesnar trumps these guys because of his superior technical wrestling ability and the credibility to back that up (NCAA undefeated champion)

-guys like LESNAR and KURT ANGLE came into the WWE with outside CREDIBILITY and ACCOMPLISHMENTS recognizable to wrestling. they are a dime a dozen. (an undefeated NCAA wrestling champion and an olympic gold medal are tremendous accomplishments, and of course, if i was vince, i would take full advantage of this. and PUSHED to the moon they were, right from the very beginning. (the boys in the locker room might not like it, but you cant have an olympic gold medalist JOB his way up the ranks---what kind of credibility would that give to the WWE? the fans would NOT buy it.)
-lesnar's and angle's MEGA PUSH from the beginning was JUSTIFIED and MADE SENSE. it was up to them to take the ball and run with it--and they
did.

as for LESNAR'S drawing power in the UFC, he generated roughly about $50+ million in PPV buyrates for EACH UFC event he headlined. EACH. check this quick link out:

www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/12/31/2672...snar-retirement-alistair-overeem-pay-per-view

-MMA purists HATED lesnar, but guess what, people STILL paid to see him. lesnar is a TOP draw whether people like it or not.

-ryder's youtube show.....what credibility does that have? he can film himself and do multiple takes and edits. great accomplishment. david arquette made a couple of movies. people want to see him right? let's make him the world champion....OOOPS...one the biggest mistake WCW ever made.

what does that have to do with his actual IN RING WRESTLING TALENTS? ryder's IN RING skill and talking ability remained the SAME undercard level it was before. it seems everyone just jumped on the ryder bandwagon after his youtube show took off. its ridiculous. where were his fans before? not really there to begin with.

he's the same OVER-RATED dude, with a 'hit' youtube show.

sure, maybe he sells more merchandise because of this little bandwagon he got going on, but my argument is for everyone to OPEN THEIR EYES and see that he is the same NO WRESTLING ABILITY, NO MIC SKILL, NO ACTING CHOPS, goofy guy that he was before.

-as far as JBL, never was a fan of the guy either. like i said he never generated good heat like miz heat or ziggler heat, he generated the michael cole 'shut the fuck up, go away, you're annoying' heat. to me, he NEVER produced a ***** match. hell, he never produced an ENJOYABLE match to begin with. he was UNWATCHABLE in the ring. he WAS better on the mic though than zack ryder, i'll give him that, but for the most part, unwatchable.

i know this is heavily opinion-based, but for me, being a technical wrestling fan, JBL was not one of the best heels. (austin, hart, hbk, edge, jericho, the rock----these guys were GREAT heels. guys who can TALK and WRESTLE. i wouldn't put JBL on that list. sure, he could run his mouth like no tomorrow, but he could NOT wrestle.
 
KLIQ69,

first off, thank you KLIQ69 for continuing an INTELLIGENT DEBATE here. unlike SCOFIELD who continues to INSULT and not back up the thread he helped to create. ok here we go:

-meltzer's ratings system has been in question and mass debate for years...although he is a highly recognized wrestling writer, his system needs major overhaul as many diehard fans can attest.

i mean, he gives cena / punk from MITB 2011 *****??!!! cena in a ***** match??!!! i mean, dude, it was a great match, but not a ***** match.

meltzer never gave HBK / undertaker from WM 25 *****, nor did he give HBK / triple H/ benoit from WM 20 *****, nor did he give Jericho / HBK from WM 19 *****, nor did he give rey mysterio / eddie guerrero from halloween havoc 97 *****----these were ALL classic, legendary matches....., i can go on and on with much greater matches than cena / punk from MITB 2011.

if you a wrestling fan who've seen a lot of matches, you KNOW these afformentioned matches i named above were much BETTER than cena / punk, as great as it was. now , you tell me, in your opinion, is meltzer's 'coveted' system of ***** matches truly accurate? me, I think not.

-as for nick dinsmore, tough shit for him, he got a shitty gimmick. never was a fan anyway. to me, what matters is what he did on the bigger stage of the WWE and he failed to impress.

-my arguments first and foremost, are based on wrestling ability IN the ring, mic skills, charisma, and look. as far as these 4 characteristics, sting got warrior beat.

-vader. yea vader was pretty quick, he had power, and he could do a moonsault. 3 out of 4. what he did NOT have was the technical wrestling ability that lesnar possessed.

-mike awesome. awesome was great. he was powerful, he would splash off the top rope, and he was a major spotfest with powerbombs and slams. his match with taz/masato tanaka from ecw 99 (forgot the name of the ppv, but taz's last ECW match) was one of the greatest ECW matches of all time. again though, he was not as quick as lesnar, and, he did NOT have the technical wrestling ability of lesnar.

lesnar trumps these guys because of his superior technical wrestling ability and the credibility to back that up (NCAA undefeated champion)

-guys like LESNAR and KURT ANGLE came into the WWE with outside CREDIBILITY and ACCOMPLISHMENTS recognizable to wrestling. they are a dime a dozen. (an undefeated NCAA wrestling champion and an olympic gold medal are tremendous accomplishments, and of course, if i was vince, i would take full advantage of this. and PUSHED to the moon they were, right from the very beginning. (the boys in the locker room might not like it, but you cant have an olympic gold medalist JOB his way up the ranks---what kind of credibility would that give to the WWE? the fans would NOT buy it.)
-lesnar's and angle's MEGA PUSH from the beginning was JUSTIFIED and MADE SENSE. it was up to them to take the ball and run with it--and they
did.

as for LESNAR'S drawing power in the UFC, he generated roughly about $50+ million in PPV buyrates for EACH UFC event he headlined. EACH. check this quick link out:

www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/12/31/2672...snar-retirement-alistair-overeem-pay-per-view

-MMA purists HATED lesnar, but guess what, people STILL paid to see him. lesnar is a TOP draw whether people like it or not.

-ryder's youtube show.....what credibility does that have? he can film himself and do multiple takes and edits. great accomplishment. david arquette made a couple of movies. people want to see him right? let's make him the world champion....OOOPS...one the biggest mistake WCW ever made.

what does that have to do with his actual IN RING WRESTLING TALENTS? ryder's IN RING skill and talking ability remained the SAME undercard level it was before. it seems everyone just jumped on the ryder bandwagon after his youtube show took off. its ridiculous. where were his fans before? not really there to begin with.

he's the same OVER-RATED dude, with a 'hit' youtube show.

sure, maybe he sells more merchandise because of this little bandwagon he got going on, but my argument is for everyone to OPEN THEIR EYES and see that he is the same NO WRESTLING ABILITY, NO MIC SKILL, NO ACTING CHOPS, goofy guy that he was before.

-as far as JBL, never was a fan of the guy either. like i said he never generated good heat like miz heat or ziggler heat, he generated the michael cole 'shut the fuck up, go away, you're annoying' heat. to me, he NEVER produced a ***** match. hell, he never produced an ENJOYABLE match to begin with. he was UNWATCHABLE in the ring. he WAS better on the mic though than zack ryder, i'll give him that, but for the most part, unwatchable.

i know this is heavily opinion-based, but for me, being a technical wrestling fan, JBL was not one of the best heels. (austin, hart, hbk, edge, jericho, the rock----these guys were GREAT heels. guys who can TALK and WRESTLE. i wouldn't put JBL on that list. sure, he could run his mouth like no tomorrow, but he could NOT wrestle.

Intelligent. Right. I am sorry an intelligent post is based upon assumptions from what you have seen TV. Key word assumptions here folks. The whole Zack Ryder debate is played out I've made my point and you obviously don't get it. Like I said there is no just gratification in arguing with an idiot.

JBL not one of the best heels, I am trying to contain myself here from laughing my ass off.

I get it, you like wrestling...your a wrestling purist...you love allllllllll of the biggggg household names. If you want technical pure wrestling & are a huge fan of tune in to Amatuer Wrestling, don't tune in to WWE. You mentioned you like guys like Jericho, Austin, Rock, Hart, Angle & Lesnar but I am sorry there are 10 other names that are amazing wrestling talent on that WWE roster albeit maybe not as technically sound but still have talent. You take all this wayyyyyy to seriously and is obvious you really play along and are a huge fan of gimmicks and monster machines that are popular in WWE.

A real wrestling fan will look at the positives of a wrestler aswell as the negatives whilst still appreciating what that wrestler gives in his own strengths to the company whether it's WWE, TNA, RoH, NJPW.

But going back to JBL not being a good heel & not having wrestling ability. Again are you a former WWE Champion? As much as I love good technical catch as can wrestling myself, this is WWE. Do you understand what WWE is and has been for a very long while now? WWE is and was ENTERTAINMENT long before the PG era.

Regardless of how much training you have, as long as you have some training & have paid your dues but yet also create revenue in T-Shirt sales & PPV buys & the most important thing over with the crowd...then you have made it in the land of Sports Entertainment....not WRESTLING. As much as I have already mentioned about Zack Ryder, the guy is over. One persons idiotic opinion on the Internet will not count versus an ever growing fan list with that "YouTube" show or god forbid "Twitter". Remember this is entertainment.


If you want wrestling, technical catch as can wrestling. Find a good indepedent show to watch. Maybe catch some Japanese wrestling or hell even watch some amatuer background wrestling because your comments either indicate your a wet panties boy for the big names in WWE or mister I only love proper grapplers.

Plus you mentioned great heels & great grapplers? Austin is a mediocre wrestler at best. Bret Hart that you keep mentioning, never was the greatest on the microphone. Aswell as for the record Austin was never the best of heels, period.

In closing, because one I am not wasting my time on idiotic arguments a real wrestling fan that truly appreciates the business in whole, will look at the positives aswell as the negatives. If you can't see that through your thick skull and keep throwing back at me that I can't conduct a "intelligent" conversation
 
SCOFIELD,

even though you continue to INSULT...LOL....i will respond to your thread intelligently, and like i always do, WITHOUT insulting you. here we go:


hogan was OVER. but were his matches all that great.....NO.

kevin nash was OVER. but were his matches all that great....NO.

JBL was OVER (per se). but were his matches all that great....NO.

thats my point.

even though you are OVER, that doesn't mean you are GREAT all around.

zack ryder may be 'over', but has he produced a great match.....NO.
zack ryder may be 'over', but has he produced a solid in ring promo....NO.

he is NOT that good. he lacks the ring work and mic work to make him a viable, credible threat to anyone. if the zack ryder fanboys would just OPEN THEIR EYES for a minute and see through the youtube fascination and this little bandwagon of his, you ryder fans would see this. can he work on this, sure he can. but as of right now, he DON'T got it.

i am fans of wrestlers who have the TOTAL PACKAGE.
examples of guys who were OVER and had the total package, and when i say the total package, i'm talking :

1) wrestling ability
2) mic skills
3) charisma
4) IT factor
5) the look
6) marketability

bret hart, shawn michaels, steve austin, chris jericho, edge, kurt angle, eddie guerrero, rey mysterio, brock lesnar, ECW taz, ECW RVD, undertaker....

current stars who i see that have the TOTAL PACKAGE as it pertains to today's PG era:

-cm punk, dolph ziggler, cody rhodes, wade barrett, alberto del rio, the miz, randy orton, christian.... (sorry not much of a wwe daniel bryan fan)

-TNA guys: aj styles, samoa joe, christopher daniels, austin aries, beer money, motor city machine guns,....

these guys above can TALK, WRESTLE, ENTERTAIN.

zack ryder ......0 for 3 in that department.

scofield, you said: "You take all this wayyyyyy to seriously and is obvious you really play along and are a huge fan of gimmicks and monster machines that are popular in WWE."

sure man, if i was a huge fan of gimmicks and 'monster machines' then i would have named myself EugeneGoldustGodfatherViscera80. give me a break man. i was NEVER a fan of stupid 'doomed to midcard status' gimmicks or monster machines.

-bret hart was great on the mic. vastly under-rated if you ask me. just youtube anyone of hart's heel promos from 1997 vs austin or HBK. that year brought out some of his best work on the mic.

-austin was mediocre in the ring-----are you kidding me??!!! he was GREAT in the ring. he had numerous ***** matches with different opponents----bret hart, triple h, the rock, kurt angle, chris benoit (which is not really recognized, but youtube them from 2001, they were great) ...his match with bret at WM 13 is widely-considered (by wrestlers, fans, critics alike) as THE greatest wrestling match of all time. go look that one up

-as for positives on zack ryder, i already stated this on a previous thread, i admire him for making his own opportunity when one wasn't there for him. much props. but as far as his SKILLS in the ring and on the mic-----NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

his skills are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to warrant this push of his that led to TOO MUCH tv time (which led to lower ratings and some of the worst television the wwe ever produced with that corny 'changing a flat tire' scene), and let alone a run with the prestigious US title

-there you go scofield. simple rebuttal to your argument. and NO INSULTS....can you do the same?
 
I don't hate Zack Ryder but it's almost to the point of that due to WWE forcing him down our throats these past few months. He is the most overhyped and overrated superstar on the roster right now. His wrestling skills are very average, his mic skills are only alright that's it, some charisma outside the ring but none inside of it. His push that he received recently is almost completely undeserved. Why did he get it? All because he got subscribers on youtube? It wasn't the most ridiculous thing WWE has ever done it was smart of them to capitalize on his very shocking popularity but I don't see why everyone loves him so much.
 
SCOFIELD,

even though you continue to INSULT...LOL....i will respond to your thread intelligently, and like i always do, WITHOUT insulting you. here we go:


hogan was OVER. but were his matches all that great.....NO.

kevin nash was OVER. but were his matches all that great....NO.

JBL was OVER (per se). but were his matches all that great....NO.

thats my point.

even though you are OVER, that doesn't mean you are GREAT all around.

zack ryder may be 'over', but has he produced a great match.....NO.
zack ryder may be 'over', but has he produced a solid in ring promo....NO.

he is NOT that good. he lacks the ring work and mic work to make him a viable, credible threat to anyone. if the zack ryder fanboys would just OPEN THEIR EYES for a minute and see through the youtube fascination and this little bandwagon of his, you ryder fans would see this. can he work on this, sure he can. but as of right now, he DON'T got it.

i am fans of wrestlers who have the TOTAL PACKAGE.
examples of guys who were OVER and had the total package, and when i say the total package, i'm talking :

1) wrestling ability
2) mic skills
3) charisma
4) IT factor
5) the look
6) marketability

bret hart, shawn michaels, steve austin, chris jericho, edge, kurt angle, eddie guerrero, rey mysterio, brock lesnar, ECW taz, ECW RVD, undertaker....

current stars who i see that have the TOTAL PACKAGE as it pertains to today's PG era:

-cm punk, dolph ziggler, cody rhodes, wade barrett, alberto del rio, the miz, randy orton, christian.... (sorry not much of a wwe daniel bryan fan)

-TNA guys: aj styles, samoa joe, christopher daniels, austin aries, beer money, motor city machine guns,....

these guys above can TALK, WRESTLE, ENTERTAIN.

zack ryder ......0 for 3 in that department.

scofield, you said: "You take all this wayyyyyy to seriously and is obvious you really play along and are a huge fan of gimmicks and monster machines that are popular in WWE."

sure man, if i was a huge fan of gimmicks and 'monster machines' then i would have named myself EugeneGoldustGodfatherViscera80. give me a break man. i was NEVER a fan of stupid 'doomed to midcard status' gimmicks or monster machines.

-bret hart was great on the mic. vastly under-rated if you ask me. just youtube anyone of hart's heel promos from 1997 vs austin or HBK. that year brought out some of his best work on the mic.

-austin was mediocre in the ring-----are you kidding me??!!! he was GREAT in the ring. he had numerous ***** matches with different opponents----bret hart, triple h, the rock, kurt angle, chris benoit (which is not really recognized, but youtube them from 2001, they were great) ...his match with bret at WM 13 is widely-considered (by wrestlers, fans, critics alike) as THE greatest wrestling match of all time. go look that one up

-as for positives on zack ryder, i already stated this on a previous thread, i admire him for making his own opportunity when one wasn't there for him. much props. but as far as his SKILLS in the ring and on the mic-----NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

his skills are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to warrant this push of his that led to TOO MUCH tv time (which led to lower ratings and some of the worst television the wwe ever produced with that corny 'changing a flat tire' scene), and let alone a run with the prestigious US title

-there you go scofield. simple rebuttal to your argument. and NO INSULTS....can you do the same?

Of course I have seen Austin v Bret, but I have also seen Bret v HBK ;) As for his wrestling abilities, I seem to recall himself aswell as JR in interviews admitting Austin was never the best in the ring. Especially when he entered the persona known as "Stone Cold Steve Austin". Yes when he was the Ringmaster or Stunning Steve his wrestling ability looked A-Ok. Same goes for the man himself known as Mr. 5 moves...John Cena, if you had watched the Prototype John Cena or the ruthless agression John Cena you would see he did have some in-ring talent only to have his moveset limited down to the John Cena we know today.

Maybe if you didn't come off as a typical IWC jackass who thinks he knows it all to begin with their wouldn't have been this stupid crap going around in circles.

But heres my F***ING point the whole time. Your posts on Zack Ryder is all based upon assumptions. LIKE I HAVE mentioned for the 3rd effing time.

Other than watching his "YouTube" shows have you:

1. Trained with Zack Ryder himself when he was training in DSW & OVW? To see what his moveset is pre-WWE, pre-Long Island Iced Z?

2. Are you aware most wrestlers movesets are not the same as what they presently are today with current WWE product?

3. Are you aware that despite Ryder putting his own foot in the door, are you aware that Ryder himself basically has no say creatively as to what storylines her partakes in WWE?

4. Have you watched any of his work prior to his push on RAW as of 2011?

5. Half the wrestlers you bash & rip & shit all over, have you seen any of their work outside of WWE?

6. Can't cut a promo? Has he been given the oppurtunity to do so by....wait for it.......WWE Creative? The people who book his matches...the people who book Monday Night RAW?

7. Have you even watched a episode of his YouTube show?

In closing for the 3rd effing time, I respect that you do not like Zack Ryder...I myself think it's a bit of cheesy persona even for the PG era but the guy has potential if he can apply himself and continue to learn the business & continue to make the sacrifices it takes to be an upper level talent in WWE. What I have being trying to get across to you is that you think far too negatively of something/someone based over assumptions you draw up in your own eyes.

I could spit out 10 other great matches NOT involving Austin, Lesnar, Rock, Y2J, Benoit that are PRESENTLY on the WWE roster and have been on the roster in the past.
 
SCOFIELD,

thanks for an intelligent response for once. ok here we go:

-i actually liked john cena when i first saw him in 2002 against kurt angle. i thought the guy had huge potential. he was more of a wrestler back then and he was pretty good. the crowd even got behind the guy which was impressive. i liked him even more when he was the rapping heel. i started to dislike him when his character became too cheesy, he was booked as superman, his moves were toned down, and the fact that the WWE kept shoving him down our throats.

-you said this about zack ryder: "but the guy has potential if he can apply himself and continue to learn the business & continue to make the sacrifices it takes to be an upper level talent in WWE."

this statement above can be applied to ALL up and coming superstars in the WWE. ALL superstars.

what i'm trying to say is RIGHT NOW----RIGHT NOW----and i'm emphasizing RIGHT NOW----zack ryder does NOT have IT.

he just DOESN'T have IT.

he's getting WAY TOO MUCH exposure and TV time that quite frankly have been some of the WORST segments ever in the history of RAW (check out the ratings report from that raw where ryder was changing a flat tire with eve) . and the fact that he was even pushed to the UNITED STATES championship makes me sick.

and the catalyst for this push of his : his freakin youtube show.

NOT his IN RING ABILITY. NOT his MIC SKILLS. NOT his RING PERSONA. NOT his OVERALL ENTERTAINABILITY as a CHARACTER----his youtube show.

this was UNJUSTIFIED and UNDESERVED.

i have YET to see something from ryder that IMPRESSES me. i would think that from all this tv time he is eating up that he would impress me in a match, a promo, a backstage skit------but i have seen NOTHING impressive from the guy. NOTHING.

dolph ziggler has been VERY IMPRESSIVE in his work lately in the ring and on the mic. (he SHINED in that promo with foley a few weeks back)

mark henry was VERY IMPRESSIVE in his heel work as the world champion.

cody rhodes was IMPRESSIVE with his heel work and his program with booker t.

wade barrett has been VERY IMPRESSIVE in his feuds with randy orton and shaemus.

but zack ryder?......i have seen NOTHING IMPRESSIVE from him------in the ring, or on the mic.

NOTHING.

he's a waste of tv time if you ask me.

much props to BIGREDPUNK for his previous post. your post 1000% captured my sentiments on zack ryder EXACLTLY. couldn't have word it better myself. (go read it real quick scofield its right before yours). he was not blinded by all the youtube hype going on and the WWE marketing ryder down every one's throats.

you and other ryder supporters, please OPEN YOUR EYES and see zack ryder for what he truly is---the same NO ring talent, NO mic skills UNDERCARDER he was before the 'hit' youtube show.

-oh and out of curiosity SCOFIELD, what are your top 5 favorite matches of all time?
 
KLIQ69,

first off, thank you KLIQ69 for continuing an INTELLIGENT DEBATE here. unlike SCOFIELD who continues to INSULT and not back up the thread he helped to create. ok here we go:

-meltzer's ratings system has been in question and mass debate for years...although he is a highly recognized wrestling writer, his system needs major overhaul as many diehard fans can attest.

i mean, he gives cena / punk from MITB 2011 *****??!!! cena in a ***** match??!!! i mean, dude, it was a great match, but not a ***** match.

meltzer never gave HBK / undertaker from WM 25 *****, nor did he give HBK / triple H/ benoit from WM 20 *****, nor did he give Jericho / HBK from WM 19 *****, nor did he give rey mysterio / eddie guerrero from halloween havoc 97 *****----these were ALL classic, legendary matches....., i can go on and on with much greater matches than cena / punk from MITB 2011.
Meltzer's ratings system has been criticized for being too tough. However, I much prefer a system that only bestows the highest honor very rarely. It means that it's an honor to receive it. Look up Bret's comments about finally getting a 5 star ranking from Meltzer.

It's very hard for multiple people matches to get a 5 star rating... Too often spots break down to one on one. All of the matches you listed had flaws and while they all rank in the 4-4 1/2 star range, none deserved five stars. The best match listed was Taker/HBK at Mania, but they had several botched spots during the match (including Taker nearly breaking his own neck) that dropped the rating down. Also there are times early in the match and toward the middle of it where the crowd appeared to be sitting on their hands.
if you a wrestling fan who've seen a lot of matches, you KNOW these afformentioned matches i named above were much BETTER than cena / punk, as great as it was. now , you tell me, in your opinion, is meltzer's 'coveted' system of ***** matches truly accurate? me, I think not.
The problem is you have one standard by which to judge great matches with. If a technical clinic isn't part of the match, you have a problem with it. The Punk match had the crowd in it from bell to bell, the action was logical, even the commentary was pretty good. Those two told a story in the ring all the way until Cena prevented another screw-job and was beaten clean. Throw in Punk's emotion and the crowd reaction after the match, the attempted run-in by ADR, the quick kick, the escape into the crowd, the look on Vince's face, It was all done very well.
-as for nick dinsmore, tough shit for him, he got a shitty gimmick. never was a fan anyway. to me, what matters is what he did on the bigger stage of the WWE and he failed to impress.
So tough shit eh? What he did in the indies doesn't matter, eh? That means that anything anyone did before they got in to the WWE doesn't matter. So Flair's titles, DB's wrestler of the year awards, Foley's iconic matches in Japan, and Angle's Olympic gold medals shouldn't have any bearing on how their WWE careers were judged.
-my arguments first and foremost, are based on wrestling ability IN the ring, mic skills, charisma, and look. as far as these 4 characteristics, sting got warrior beat.
My argument remains that who's better as a wrestler is determined by who put more asses in seats. Long-term, Sting wins by sheer longevity. Comparing the years both guys were actively competing, Warrior wins without breaking a sweat
-vader. yea vader was pretty quick, he had power, and he could do a moonsault. 3 out of 4. what he did NOT have was the technical wrestling ability that lesnar possessed.
Again, I have no doubt that you're judging Vader on his WWE career. You've never watched his matches in Japan, never studied his work in early WCW, and because he didn't spend 10 minutes of every match boring the crowds with rest holds (and yes most of the moves done by "technical" wrestlers are nothing more than rest holds) then he wasn't great? Completely illogical thinking.
-mike awesome. awesome was great. he was powerful, he would splash off the top rope, and he was a major spotfest with powerbombs and slams. his match with taz/masato tanaka from ecw 99 (forgot the name of the ppv, but taz's last ECW match) was one of the greatest ECW matches of all time. again though, he was not as quick as lesnar, and, he did NOT have the technical wrestling ability of lesnar.
So again, you mention ECW and ignore his body of work from overseas. Awesome was quick if not quicker than Lesnar early in his career. He didn't just "splash" from the top rope. I've seen him do moonsaults, topes, cross bodies from 12 foot scaffolds. He was a FMW headliner for crying out loud.
lesnar trumps these guys because of his superior technical wrestling ability and the credibility to back that up (NCAA undefeated champion)
source wiki:
Lesnar won the 2000 NCAA wrestling championship as a heavyweight after placing second in 1999.

Prior to joining the Minnesota Golden Gophers, Lesnar wrestled at Bismarck State College in Bismarck, North Dakota.[2] Lesnar finished his amateur career as a two-time NJCAA All-American, 1998 NJCAA Heavyweight Champion, two-time NCAA All-American, two-time Big Ten Conference Champion, and the 2000 NCAA heavyweight champion with a record of 106–5 overall in four years of college.
-----------------
So not only was he not good enough to get to D1 right out of college, he won only one NCAA D1 title in college. It's not like he was Cael or Dan for crying out loud. If you know folk style, you know Cael is the only man to ever go undefeated for 4 years, with over 100 wins, and win 4 NCAA D1 Titles. And Dan is well Dan.
-guys like LESNAR and KURT ANGLE came into the WWE with outside CREDIBILITY and ACCOMPLISHMENTS recognizable to wrestling. they are a dime a dozen. (an undefeated NCAA wrestling champion and an olympic gold medal are tremendous accomplishments, and of course, if i was vince, i would take full advantage of this. and PUSHED to the moon they were, right from the very beginning. (the boys in the locker room might not like it, but you cant have an olympic gold medalist JOB his way up the ranks---what kind of credibility would that give to the WWE? the fans would NOT buy it.)
-lesnar's and angle's MEGA PUSH from the beginning was JUSTIFIED and MADE SENSE. it was up to them to take the ball and run with it--and they
did.
Angle had a slow push to begin with, losing at his first Mania (twice). He was slowly turned into a credible champion and once he got there was willing to put guys over. Lesnar didn't do that. Angle also had the testicular fortitude to continue wrestling despite the travel schedule, despite injuries. Brock went home in less than two years. Even Goldberg had a longer career than Brock.
as for LESNAR'S drawing power in the UFC, he generated roughly about $50+ million in PPV buyrates for EACH UFC event he headlined. EACH. check this quick link out:

www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/12/31/2672...snar-retirement-alistair-overeem-pay-per-view

-MMA purists HATED lesnar, but guess what, people STILL paid to see him. lesnar is a TOP draw whether people like it or not.
http://www.mma-manifesto.com/ufc-ppv-data/ppv-main/2010-year-in-review-ufc-ppv-buyrates.html

1 7/11/2009 UFC 100: Lesnar vs. Mir 2 1,600,000
2 7/3/2010 UFC 116: Lesnar vs. Carwin 1,160,000
3 12/30/2006 UFC 66: Liddell vs. Ortiz 2 1,050,000
4 5/29/2010 UFC 114: Rampage vs. Evans 1,050,000
5 10/23/2010 UFC 121: Lesnar vs. Velasquez 1,050,000
6 11/15/2008 UFC 91: Couture vs. Lesnar 1,010,000
7 12/27/2008 UFC 92: The Ultimate 2008 1,000,000
8 1/31/2009 UFC 94: St-Pierre vs. Penn 2 920,000
9 8/8/2009 UFC 101: Declaration 850,000
10 3/27/2010 UFC 111: St-Pierre vs. Hardy 850,000
11 4/30/2011 UFC 129: St-Pierre vs. Shields 800,000
12 12/11/2010 UFC 124: St-Pierre vs. Koscheck 2 800,000
13 30/12/2011 UFC 141: Lesnar vs. Overeem 800,000
14 7/8/2006 UFC 61: Bitter Rivals 775,000
15 2/5/2011 UFC 126: Silva vs. Belfort 750,000
16 12/29/2007 UFC 79: Nemesis 700,000
17 5/26/2007 UFC 71: Liddell vs. Jackson 675,000
18 4/18/2009 UFC 97: Redemption 650,000
19 5/23/2009 UFC 98: Evans vs. Machida 635,000
20 8/9/2008 UFC 87: Seek And Destroy 625,000


As you can see, the only card Lesnar was on that did considerably higher than any other show was UFC 100, which was the most packed card they ever had. It featured besides the main event, Henderson/Bisbing, GSP/Alves, and Bonnar/Coleman.

As you can see from the list, GSP also has a considerable drawing power so attribute the buyrate from 100 to only Lesnar is illogical. GSP's fight from 2011 drew the same buyrate as Lesnar's fight from 2011.
-ryder's youtube show.....what credibility does that have? he can film himself and do multiple takes and edits. great accomplishment. david arquette made a couple of movies. people want to see him right? let's make him the world champion....OOOPS...one the biggest mistake WCW ever made.
It was his way of building a fan base and get noticed. Since doing the show and being put on television, the results have been rather good. Again, he's been selling merchandise and getting a reaction from the crowd. As a mid-carder that's the best that can be hoped for.
what does that have to do with his actual IN RING WRESTLING TALENTS? ryder's IN RING skill and talking ability remained the SAME undercard level it was before. it seems everyone just jumped on the ryder bandwagon after his youtube show took off. its ridiculous. where were his fans before? not really there to begin with.

he's the same OVER-RATED dude, with a 'hit' youtube show.

sure, maybe he sells more merchandise because of this little bandwagon he got going on, but my argument is for everyone to OPEN THEIR EYES and see that he is the same NO WRESTLING ABILITY, NO MIC SKILL, NO ACTING CHOPS, goofy guy that he was before.
And again you are missing the entire point. HE IS MAKING THE COMPANY MONEY. End all be all in wrestling is doing that one thing. Not being able to put on clinics, not cutting great promos, nothing else matters in terms of card position except who is going to bring in the green stuff.
-as far as JBL, never was a fan of the guy either. like i said he never generated good heat like miz heat or ziggler heat, he generated the michael cole 'shut the fuck up, go away, you're annoying' heat. to me, he NEVER produced a ***** match. hell, he never produced an ENJOYABLE match to begin with. he was UNWATCHABLE in the ring. he WAS better on the mic though than zack ryder, i'll give him that, but for the most part, unwatchable.

i know this is heavily opinion-based, but for me, being a technical wrestling fan, JBL was not one of the best heels. (austin, hart, hbk, edge, jericho, the rock----these guys were GREAT heels. guys who can TALK and WRESTLE. i wouldn't put JBL on that list. sure, he could run his mouth like no tomorrow, but he could NOT wrestle.

If they are opinions then word them as such. I watched several enjoyable JBL matches. His matches with Eddie were fun, his matches with Taker were good for big men, his matches with Rey (save his final mania match) were decent, and his match with HBK was very enjoyable.

You claim he didn't have real heat, however despite having several top level heels on the roster during WM21, Vince chose JBL to be the one to put over his new "face of the company". Not HHH, not Angle, not Jericho, he chose JBL because of the amount of heat JBL had at that point.

The reason I say one of the top heels of the last decade is because only one other guy headlining for Vince was a true heel. That was Jericho. The rest are cool heels or tweeners. The garner cheers along with boos, sell merchandise, do public appearances, etc. They are not hated, they are not loathed. JBL was.

And you ignored yet another point. You talk about guys who "love" the business, how can you not respect a guy who is a self-made millionaire in the financial sector who keeps wrestling because of his love of the industry. What other guy has shown that kind of dedication?
 
KLIQ69,

we all have different tastes as to who is good and who is not. you've partially seen my list, but, out of curiosity, who are your top 5 favorite wrestlers? what are YOUR top 5 matches of all time?

im gonna take this argument back to where it all started----zack ryder.

see, this is where we but heads on:

i see a GREAT WRESTLER as having these qualitites (in order of importance):

-wrestling ability IN the ring
-mic skills
-charisma
-the look
-marketability / drawing power

and you, correct me if i'm wrong here, you see a GREAT WRESTLER as :

"who's better as a wrestler is determined by who put more asses in seats"

so i'm guessing you put marketability / drawing power as your #1 quality in a GREAT WRESTLER. and maybe you judge too using the qualities listed above. but in what order of importance, i don't know. its ok though, i respect that.

you said ''it's all about the money''. understandably so. wrestling is a business and you gotta make money. i see that. but what i'm getting at is,ryder may be selling merchandise and netting dough for vince but does that mean he is entertaining as hell on tv??? does that mean he's a great WRESTLER?? NOT to me. it's NOT enough.

my argument, IS, that in my eyes, judging by the qualities i see MORE important, zack ryder is NOT a GREAT WRESTLER. he simply ain't that good.

he may sell merchandise like you said, but he simply AIN'T that good.

as far as i'm concerned, he is 0 for 5 in the qualities department . (maybe 0.5 for 5 if i count his bandwagon youtube fans who buy his merchandise).

the catalyst for his current push on tv : his freakin youtube show.

NOT what he could do IN the ring---NOT his wrestling talent, NOT his mic skills----qualities that a wrestler should have to earn tv time, but a freakin' youtube show.

i mean, where were his fans before this youtube show of his? they were few and far between. ryder signs were barely seen in the audience on raw or smackdown. i mean, sure the fact that he is an underdog, and he tried to get over on his own with the youtube show...ok i get that. i'm sure people admired his effort and he pulled in some fans by doing that. much props. but ryder fans, what does an internet show have to do with ryder's performances IN THE RING???

that is my main gripe with him------it has NOTHING to do with it. OPEN YOUR EYES ryder fans and SEE this.

he's the SAME performer in the ring before the show got 'popular.'

i'm just basing my opinion of ryder, SOLELY-----SOLELY on his IN RING WRESTLING ABILITY and his MIC SKILLS. his youtube show is a NON-issue as far as my assessment of zack ryder. i am NOT blinded by this like all of his other followers and ryder fan boys.

if you bring IT during an actual live WWE event in the ring and on the mic on a superior and entertaining level, then shit you are GOOD and worthy of the tv time. but like i told scofield, i have seen NOTHING from ryder that impresses me. NOTHING.

in my opinion, the past couple of episodes of raw where ryder played major roles were some of the WORST segments in the history of monday night raw. ratings even reflect the episode with ryder changing a flat tire (ryder was on 6 different segments on that show alone) as being one of the LOWEST rated raw episodes in the past decade. one of the LOWEST rated.

and you would think that from all this tv time that ryder's getting, all of this opportunity he's getting now to maybe translate his 'entertainment' value from his youtube show to ONSCREEN on monday night raw.....i have YET to see anything impressive from the guy. NOTHING IMPRESSIVE.

NO enjoyable matches. NO solid in ring promos. NO good acting skits.

NOTHING.

and he's had about 2 months now of this solid PUSH. and he was NOT very impressive in my book. sure the booking team shares some blame. but still, he was put out there to shine, and to me he NEVER did. i tried to see through the bullshit, but still, the dude is NOT ENTERTAINING.

he DON'T got it.

*****BE HONEST RYDER FANS..........has he IMPRESSED you IN THE RING? has he IMPRESSED you on the mic?*****

he's had MORE than enough TIME to prove he could do something. but, in all honesty, i have seen NOTHING.

it's time to END it. vince was right to take the belt off of him. and i was super glad kane SQUASHED and BURIED him.

unless ryder steps his game up in the ring and on the mic, IF and when he comes back, because from what i'm seeing from him RIGHT NOW, and i'm emphasizing RIGHT NOW------he DON'T got IT.
 
KLIQ69,

we all have different tastes as to who is good and who is not. you've partially seen my list, but, out of curiosity, who are your top 5 favorite wrestlers? what are YOUR top 5 matches of all time?
My all-time favorite wrestlers: 1) Ric Flair, 2) Shawn Michaels, 3) Chris Benoit, 4) Hulk Hogan, 5) Mick Foley

I was a die-hard Hulkamaniac in the 80s and early 90s, so despite the fact that some would like to criticize Hogan for a perceived "lack of skill", I've always remembered the childhood memories and what kind of emotion his matches brought out. Benoit is probably a controversial choice, but I followed his career from Stampede to Japan to ECW to WCW to WWE. How his life ending, to me, had no impact on how I view the years of enjoyment I had watching him perform. Mick Foley is similar, from watching tapes of him in WCCW, mid south, and other territories to WCW and Japan to ECW and WWE, he constantly kept me entertained. The first two are no-brainers. In my opinion, they are the two greatest to ever step foot in the ring.

Top five matches or favorite matches? Because the lists differ considerably.

Top Five matches (ring work only):
1) Flair vs Steamboat (Clash VI)
2) Tiger Mask vs Dynamite Kid (83)
3) HBK/Razor (WM10)
4) Wild Pegasus/great sasuke (SuperJ Cup 94) (super J cup 94 btw is the single best show ever put on from a wrestling purists standpoint. If you are are fan of ring work and have not seen this show, go find it. Lowest rated match is roughly 2.5 stars, most hit around the 4 star mark, several exceed that mark with the finals reaching the rare 5 star rating.
5) Bret/Austin (WM13)

Top Five matches (encompassing everything involved in professional wrestling)
1) Hogan/Andre (WM3)
2) Hogan/Sting (Starrcade 97)
3) Austin/Rock (WM17)
4) Hogan/Warrior (WM7)
5) Hogan/Rock (WM18)

Now my personal favorites:
1) HBK/HHH (summerslam 02)
2) Flair/Sting (1st Clash matchup)
3) Hogan/Andre (first match I remember watching, still brings goosebumps)
4) HBK/Mankind (Mind Games 96)
5) Taker vs Jeff Hardy (Raw 02)
6) HBK/Flair (WM24) (my two favorites in one match, hard to beat)
7) Benoit/HBK/HHH (WM20) (Benoit's shining moment)
8) Mankind/Taker (KOTR 98)
9) Bret/Owen (WM10)
10) Bret/HBK (WM12)
im gonna take this argument back to where it all started----zack ryder.
see, this is where we but heads on:

i see a GREAT WRESTLER as having these qualitites (in order of importance):

-wrestling ability IN the ring
-mic skills
-charisma
-the look
-marketability / drawing power

and you, correct me if i'm wrong here, you see a GREAT WRESTLER as :

"who's better as a wrestler is determined by who put more asses in seats"

so i'm guessing you put marketability / drawing power as your #1 quality in a GREAT WRESTLER. and maybe you judge too using the qualities listed above. but in what order of importance, i don't know. its ok though, i respect that.
If you look at my list, you would see that is not the case. However, being a "GREAT WRESTLER" is not what television time and pushes is based off of.
you said ''it's all about the money''. understandably so. wrestling is a business and you gotta make money. i see that. but what i'm getting at is,ryder may be selling merchandise and netting dough for vince but does that mean he is entertaining as hell on tv??? does that mean he's a great WRESTLER?? NOT to me. it's NOT enough.
Which is why most wrestling promotions don't make money. Vince understands how to make money, According to most estimates, WWE makes roughly $20 million a year off of merchandise. If you are moving even 5% of that, it's 1 million dollars. You want a good example based on recent events... BFG 11 was main evented by Roode/Angle. However the biggest reactions of the night was for Hogan/Sting. The average fan could care less about what moves are being done, they just care about who is doing the moves.
my argument, IS, that in my eyes, judging by the qualities i see MORE important, zack ryder is NOT a GREAT WRESTLER. he simply ain't that good.

he may sell merchandise like you said, but he simply AIN'T that good.

as far as i'm concerned, he is 0 for 5 in the qualities department . (maybe 0.5 for 5 if i count his bandwagon youtube fans who buy his merchandise).
That's not even an accurate assumption. I was at Raw in October, Ryder signs and merch were second only to Punk. I can tell you for a fact that at least half the people wearing it never watched his youtube show because most of them were kids ages 3-8.

Tyson Kid can "wrestle" circles around Ryder, but has done absolutely nothing to garner a push. He hasn't done anything outside of wrestle to make anyone have an emotional investment in him. Therefore no one has an emotional investment.
the catalyst for his current push on tv : his freakin youtube show.

NOT what he could do IN the ring---NOT his wrestling talent, NOT his mic skills----qualities that a wrestler should have to earn tv time, but a freakin' youtube show.
TV time is based on dollars earned... That is it...
i mean, where were his fans before this youtube show of his? they were few and far between. ryder signs were barely seen in the audience on raw or smackdown. i mean, sure the fact that he is an underdog, and he tried to get over on his own with the youtube show...ok i get that. i'm sure people admired his effort and he pulled in some fans by doing that. much props. but ryder fans, what does an internet show have to do with ryder's performances IN THE RING???

that is my main gripe with him------it has NOTHING to do with it. OPEN YOUR EYES ryder fans and SEE this.

he's the SAME performer in the ring before the show got 'popular.'

i'm just basing my opinion of ryder, SOLELY-----SOLELY on his IN RING WRESTLING ABILITY and his MIC SKILLS. his youtube show is a NON-issue as far as my assessment of zack ryder. i am NOT blinded by this like all of his other followers and ryder fan boys.
Again, not even a Ryder fan, but I respect his dedication and will to succeed. Instead of bashing him, why not ask yourself why these other "more talented" undercard guys aren't doing things to get themselves noticed? Masters got released and did several interviews talking about how creative should have found him something better to do. He could have went about it a different way, if you're ass is on the chopping block, it's much easier to ask forgiveness than permission. The youtube show could have pissed Vince off and gotten Ryder fired even sooner. Look at his former tag team partner for a good example, Ryder did "something" to garner attention, Hawkins has done nothing and is still jobbing on Superstars.
if you bring IT during an actual live WWE event in the ring and on the mic on a superior and entertaining level, then shit you are GOOD and worthy of the tv time. but like i told scofield, i have seen NOTHING from ryder that impresses me. NOTHING.
I was quite impressed at the reaction he got when I was at Raw. Easily third behind Punk and Cena. He even got a louder pop than Orton...
in my opinion, the past couple of episodes of raw where ryder played major roles were some of the WORST segments in the history of monday night raw. ratings even reflect the episode with ryder changing a flat tire (ryder was on 6 different segments on that show alone) as being one of the LOWEST rated raw episodes in the past decade. one of the LOWEST rated.
You talking the Raw that went up against the BCS title game. Couldn't tell you anything about Raw that night. I like most people in America was watching the football game.
and you would think that from all this tv time that ryder's getting, all of this opportunity he's getting now to maybe translate his 'entertainment' value from his youtube show to ONSCREEN on monday night raw.....i have YET to see anything impressive from the guy. NOTHING IMPRESSIVE.

NO enjoyable matches. NO solid in ring promos. NO good acting skits.

NOTHING.
You mean that he is more entertaining in the show that he writes himself? I wouldn't doubt it. The guys who are most entertaining these days are the ones which creative doesn't write their parts for them.
and he's had about 2 months now of this solid PUSH. and he was NOT very impressive in my book. sure the booking team shares some blame. but still, he was put out there to shine, and to me he NEVER did. i tried to see through the bullshit, but still, the dude is NOT ENTERTAINING.
Not impressive to you... Someone must like it because he merch sales have continued at a steady pace.
he DON'T got it.

*****BE HONEST RYDER FANS..........has he IMPRESSED you IN THE RING? has he IMPRESSED you on the mic?*****

he's had MORE than enough TIME to prove he could do something. but, in all honesty, i have seen NOTHING.

it's time to END it. vince was right to take the belt off of him. and i was super glad kane SQUASHED and BURIED him.

unless ryder steps his game up in the ring and on the mic, IF and when he comes back, because from what i'm seeing from him RIGHT NOW, and i'm emphasizing RIGHT NOW------he DON'T got IT.

Again, he doesn't have it... to you... He gets a reaction from the crowd, sells merchandise, and has won offer several of the top talent in the company. He must have done something right to do so...

Oh and thank you for your obvious concession of the JBL issue.
 
KLIQ69,

oh, about JBL. i still stand behind my assessment of him:

-"never was a fan of the guy either. like i said, he never generated good heat like miz heat or ziggler heat, he generated the michael cole 'shut the fuck up, go away, you're annoying' heat. to me, he NEVER produced a ***** match. hell, he never produced an ENJOYABLE match to begin with. he was UNWATCHABLE in the ring. he WAS better on the mic though than zack ryder, i'll give him that, but for the most part, unwatchable.

i know this is heavily opinion-based, but for me, being a technical wrestling fan, JBL was not one of the best heels. (austin, hart, hbk, edge, jericho, the rock----these guys were GREAT heels. guys who can TALK and WRESTLE. i wouldn't put JBL on that list. sure, he could run his mouth like no tomorrow, but he could NOT wrestle. "

JBL was NOT an enjoyable character to hear talking.

JBL was NOT an enjoyable performer to watch in the ring.

i just REALLY disliked him.

watching wrestling is my escape from reality, and i could really care LESS if JBL was a 'self-made milliionaire' in real life.

what he does outside the business is NONE of my concern.

ALL i care about is what he does IN the ring and on that MIC.

and to me JBL was UNWATCHABLE. i mean CHANNEL-FLIPPING bad. that's why i would NEVER consider him one of the best heels. a heel to me should at least ENTERTAIN in the ring and on the mic.

he should be able to do BOTH. he NEVER showed that to me.

as far as that old school style you talk about being a truly HATED heel----sure, that worked in the '70s man.

but NOT in TODAY's generation.

the wrestlers on top gotta be able to TALK, WRESTLE, and ENTERTAIN. to me, JBL was 0 for 3. (he could definitely run his mouth though, i'll give him that.)

now, CHRIS JERICHO, on the other hand, is 3 for 3 in that department. if you ask me, CHRIS JERICHO's heel persona in 2008-2010, he embodied this old school heel you talk about, to the tee, AND he could do all three----TALK, WRESTLE, ENTERTAIN.

to me, JERICHO was one of THE best HEELS. he definitely belongs on that list. not JBL.

no performance of JBL in the ring even registers in my memory bank as being any good. even when he wrestled against one of my favorites----mysterio, guerrero, benoit, undertaker, booker t, etc----all GREAT wrestlers. to me, JBL couldn't put on a good show NO matter who you paired him with. definitely NOT one of the best heels in my book.
 
I for one think that Zack Ryder has a very big future ahead of him. Just look at the storyline he is invovled in right now. 2 of the biggest stars in the business today. I do think he can act and he is a loveable person towards the crowd.
 
hahahaaha at spunky.. so true. so true.

ryder is a BAD actor. he CAN'T wrestle. he CAN'T cut good promos.

WWE needs to release this goofy dude already
Oh yeah you think Zack Ryder sucks so much huh. Well, I like to see you step inside a ring against Kane, Cena, Punk, or any wrestler for that matter.

Zack Ryder has done what no other superstar had the balls to do (besides CM Punk :)) and that was get notice by himself. Tell me if getting noticed is not somethng Vince looks into since he gets a huge a** pop?

He can cut a promo 10X better than you I bet and last time I checked Ryder can sure as hell sell moves.
 

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