PWF Answers Wrestling Questions | Page 7 | WrestleZone Forums

PWF Answers Wrestling Questions

Why doesn't someone create a thread with just "We Answer Wrestling Questions!" and who knows maybe we can get onto something here.

Oh and btw Haiku 2002-2003 has mixed reviews so my opinion on the year is valid so I was kind of right, so YEY!! Now I just feel empty, with no real purpose here.

Nothing on the Internet is ever as good as one side of the argument makes, nor as another side makes it. Just the way of the net
 
Still hasn't answered mine about Seth Rollins being a second rate Jimmy Jacobs either....

No. Seth Rollins isn't a Jimmy Jacobs knockoff. Seth Rollins has the "it" factor. He has a variety of moves and charisma. His ROH matches with Austin Aries Matt Sydal and Bryan Danielson were top notch.
 
No. Seth Rollins isn't a Jimmy Jacobs knockoff. Seth Rollins has the "it" factor. He has a variety of moves and charisma. His ROH matches with Austin Aries Matt Sydal and Bryan Danielson were top notch.

Could you explain your notch-based rating system??

Just for future reference, as I feel this thread has definite staying power.
 
But what made them so excellent?

Listen, this is your thread, to explain your beliefs on wrestling. Part of this reason this thread is flopping, aside from the fact that no one respects you and thinks you're trash, is because we don't know what you feel makes up good wrestling. So when you say something is excellent, it would help us if you explain what you felt was excellent about his matches
 
You think the triple threat from Unbreakable 2005 is a great match? What a groundbreaking opinion you have there.

Thoughts on Steamboat vs. Savage at WrestleMania III?
 
I've been a Ring of Honor fan since 2004, Tyler Black got over because of Jimmy Jacobs and the Age of the Fall. He was just another guy before that stable started, and you mention his work with Aries and Danielson being "top notch," I agree, but that's because they are Austin Aries and Bryan Danielson. His matches with Evan Bourne or as you called him, Matt Sydal, were average at best.
 
You think the triple threat from Unbreakable 2005 is a great match? What a groundbreaking opinion you have there.

Thoughts on Steamboat vs. Savage at WrestleMania III?

A classic. Masterpiece of wrestling matches but overshadowed by Hulk Hogan vs Andre The Giant.
 
I'm trying to avoid this thread but seriously.

No. Seth Rollins isn't a Jimmy Jacobs knockoff. Seth Rollins has the "it" factor.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: If we're saying that all vanilla midgets who lack any discernible, consistent selling then i gues Davey Richards, Roderick Strong and Eddie Edwards all have the "it" factor?

He has a variety of moves and charisma.

No he doesn't.

His ROH matches with Austin Aries Matt Sydal and Bryan Danielson were top notch.
First off, use a comma. Austin Aries Matt Sydal is not a person. Onto the matches;
No story whatsoever told on Black's behalf(Or Aries or Sydal's) in any of the matches unless the story was "I'm Tyler Black and my story in the ring is that I'm the only person who kicks out of finishers"
No selling whatsoever on Black's end throughout
As TDS already pointed out, it'd be pretty damn hard for Black to have a bad match with Aries & Bryan.

You seem to think that a long match=a good match.
Black is a poor man's Jimmy Jacobs, Jacobs has personality and can actually tell a story with his work.
 
Could you explain your notch-based rating system??

Just for future reference, as I feel this thread has definite staying power.

The Notch system is very simple. It was invented by Frank Notch back in the 50's. All you need is privacy and measuring tape (the kind you would see a Russian tailor wearing around his neck).

Like most great life events the first step is taking off your pants and exposing your prick. Then you take said measuring tape and wrap it around your prick. Once the match begins you monitor how much the measuring tape is stretched and for how long. If you reach a point of full arousal and stretched the tape as far as ever before for at least five minutes, the match is considered "Top-Notch".

Other scores:
If the match doesn't move the tape at all that is considered "No-Notch", a little bit is "Wee-Notch", half way is "Mid-Notch", three quarters is "Keira Knightley-Notch", all the way again is "Top-Notch", and if you have an explosive orgasm that means the match is "Michael Bay-Notch".
 
Which one of these wrestling promotions seems most like a circus to you?

A.) Combat Zone Wrestling
B.) Ring of Honor
C.) Xtreme Pro Wrestling
D.) All of the above
 
  • Like
Reactions: .
I don't like old wrestling, I'll openly cop to that. I find it incredibly boring. Though I should have said 96 instead of 98. It's just like trying to watch old basketball games or football games. The players just aren't as athletic as they are today and the production values suck compared to today's.

We've gone from one extreme to another now. It used to be chubby white guys with very little athleticism working slow paced matches, yet telling good stories to keep the fans engaged. Nowadays, we have highly athletic guys who can't tell a fucking story to save their lives. Both are utterly unwatchable to me.
Good on you for saying this. I don't feel the same way. I tend to have a surprisingly high tolerance for older wrestling. But I certainly feel as though a lot of people here pretend to know a lot about or love Ric Flair and his ilk just because it's expected of them if they want to be considered "smart." I think it's a credit to you that you'll proudly post stuff like this.

Are you spouting terms regularly used by the IWC to describe matches?
Yes. Yes, he is.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: If we're saying that all vanilla midgets who lack any discernible, consistent selling then i gues Davey Richards, Roderick Strong and Eddie Edwards all have the "it" factor?
Can you explain to me why smarks get bent out of shape about "selling" when talking about who they like and why they like them? I understand perfectly why selling is important for telling certain stories in the ring. But it's not something I worry about. It's not like I have a check-list with pre-set criteria I'm looking for when deciding whether or not I like a wrestler. I either gravitate to someone or I don't. Why does it seem to me like most smarks over-think who they like and don't?
 
My opinion of Seth Rollins did a 180 from one episode of NXT to the next. I like his entrance now. Oddly, I didn't factor in at the time that I could just (or also) watch him on Raw.
 

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