Request a Review From KB

[klunderbunker]

I think that's the biggest barrier to a lot of people like the indies, really. But I don't understand it. If you don't know who Naruki Doi is...why not go find out? It's why I started watching ROH, which was my first indy. I heard people talking about it, and guys like Nigel and Bryan, and thought, "Well, I'd like to go find out about those guys" and was very impressed.

See that's just it: I've watched ROH, DGUSA, Chikara, PWG etc. I've seen them and they do nothing for me outside of the occasional ROH show. I don't care for this style at all because it totally misses the point.

 

[Harthan]

See that's just it: I've watched ROH, DGUSA, Chikara, PWG etc. I've seen them and they do nothing for me outside of the occasional ROH show. I don't care for this style at all because it totally misses the point.

No, I understand that. It's the difference in, say, realism and surrealism. Paint one scene realistically, the other surrealistically. Your end goal is the same, to evoke emotion from art. The traditional style (WWE, if you want) and the "indy style" (overly simplified and broad, but you get the point) have the same difference. Two different ways to get to the same goal - the emotion, passion, and entertainment of pro wrestling. You might not like surrealism, you might not the indies.

Suum cuique.

 

[Thriller Ant]

My problem with these indy companies is they have the same roster and I have no idea who most of these people are. The catch to them is they have great matches, but they're great according to people that tend to think Cena can't wrestle and that you have great matches based on how many moves you know. I love the guys in WWE because I've spent years watching them grow and go through their paths to get where they are now. Hearing that say RIchards and Naruki Doi have this great match doesn't mean much because I don't know who those two are, nor do I care. Cena vs. Punk was partially great because there's history there and the crowd and the buildup make it great, along with actual psychology and storytelling. Something like Chikara is fun because it goes so completely over the top that it becomes interesting to watch. I could see myself following that, but when they only have stuff like once every two months, it gets hard for someone with as short an attention span as I have to want to follow them.

I guess I'm in the minority that does enjoy both, as I hope I don't get mistaken for someone like the guy in the LD who thinks John Cena can't wrestle and the rest of it.

Wrestling is based on storytelling; that cannot be denied. That is a large part of the reason why Cena/Punk at MITB was so great. Cena was fighting for his job and the company he loves, while everything Punk said/did during his last month in WWE would have been for naught if he lost. Was it a technical masterpiece like Regal/Danielson from Superstars? No, but the emotion made it great.

For most indy matches, I don't go in looking for a great story like that. I've been a sports fan forever, so sometimes all I need is the desire to see someone new in the ring and the competition aspect; finding out who is better. That desire to win, the refusal to die (or no-selling ) sucks me in every time.

I go into different companies expecting different things. WWE is WWE, PWG is indy style with comedy, ROH is more serious indy style, DGUSA is Japanese, etc. I don't fault you or anyone else for not liking indies, just like I can't fault people for not liking WWE (unless they say stupid shit like Cena can't wrestle). Different strokes for different folks.

Sorry for getting a little wordy. Hopefully I didn't ramble my point away on accident

 

[Thriller Ant]

Or I could have saved 5 minutes and just said what Harthan said.

 

[klunderbunker]

No, I understand that. It's the difference in, say, realism and surrealism. Paint one scene realistically, the other surrealistically. Your end goal is the same, to evoke emotion from art. The traditional style (WWE, if you want) and the "indy style" (overly simplified and broad, but you get the point) have the same difference. Two different ways to get to the same goal - the emotion, passion, and entertainment of pro wrestling. You might not like surrealism, you might not the indies.

Suum cuique.

The difference though is that the WWE style is better put together. The athletes are better, the storytelling is better, more people come to see them and they profit more. At the end of the day, almost anyone is going to be more interested in John Cena thant hey are in say Davey Richards. If not, Richards would be in Cena's place and vice versa.

 

[Harthan]

The difference though is that the WWE style is better put together. The athletes are better, the storytelling is better, more people come to see them and they profit more. At the end of the day, almost anyone is going to be more interested in John Cena thant hey are in say Davey Richards. If not, Richards would be in Cena's place and vice versa.

I don't disagree that the WWE is more popular. I don't know that that makes any part of it better.

To use analogy, again, Nickelback might be more popular than the underground band playing at a small club in downtown Cleveland. It doesn't necessarily make them better.

 

[klunderbunker]

I guess I'm in the minority that does enjoy both, as I hope I don't get mistaken for someone like the guy in the LD who thinks John Cena can't wrestle and the rest of it.

Wrestling is based on storytelling; that cannot be denied. That is a large part of the reason why Cena/Punk at MITB was so great. Cena was fighting for his job and the company he loves, while everything Punk said/did during his last month in WWE would have been for naught if he lost. Was it a technical masterpiece like Regal/Danielson from Superstars? No, but the emotion made it great.

For most indy matches, I don't go in looking for a great story like that. I've been a sports fan forever, so sometimes all I need is the desire to see someone new in the ring and the competition aspect; finding out who is better. That desire to win, the refusal to die (or no-selling ) sucks me in every time.

I go into different companies expecting different things. WWE is WWE, PWG is indy style with comedy, ROH is more serious indy style, DGUSA is Japanese, etc. I don't fault you or anyone else for not liking indies, just like I can't fault people for not liking WWE (unless they say stupid shit like Cena can't wrestle). Different strokes for different folks.

Sorry for getting a little wordy. Hopefully I didn't ramble my point away on accident

The difference though, and I've seen Regal vs. Bryan, is that those people come out and outside of select cities, people don't care. Guys like Cena are stars at the level they're at because everyone has an opinion on them. You'll never hear a crowd quiet for a Hogan match, a Cena match, an Austin match etc, which to be fair is due to a lot of other reasons which I've gotten into before. The style is fine, but it's a niche style. Being able to appeal to everyone is the more difficult task.

Take for example OVW, which I'm still annoyed that I can't watch on TV anymore. Back in I believe 2005, there was a tag team there that set the company on fire. They were over like beer in a frat house and were in main event angles. They were these guys:

The Heartthrobs.

They were a local act which worked really well, but when they were brought to the main show they had no mass appeal. Companies like PWG and ROH have that same small area appeal, but at some point you have to expand to survive, and that's why there's no more ECW and why ROH TV sucks: they couldn't adapt to mainstream audiences.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't disagree that the WWE is more popular. I don't know that that makes any part of it better.

To use analogy, again, Nickelback might be more popular than the underground band playing at a small club in downtown Cleveland. It doesn't necessarily make them better.

WWE is a business. A business is supposed to make money. WWE makes far more money than any other wrestling company. Therefore, they're more successful and therefore better.

 

[Harthan]

WWE is a business. A business is supposed to make money. WWE makes far more money than any other wrestling company. Therefore, they're more successful and therefore better.

I don't disagree with any part of that until the last three words. I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that success is related to quality. The WWE is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a successful business. It does not necessarily make them producers of great art.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't disagree with any part of that until the last three words. I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that success is related to quality. The WWE is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a successful business. It does not necessarily make them producers of great art.

Who says they need to be great art to be good? You can't really measure something's artistic value. You can measure the amount of dollars they bring in.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I don't disagree with any part of that until the last three words. I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that success is related to quality. The WWE is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a successful business. It does not necessarily make them producers of great art.

This is pretty much what I would say as well

 

[Harthan]

Who says they need to be great art to be good? You can't really measure something's artistic value. You can measure the amount of dollars they bring in.

Then we find ourselves quibbling over the definition of "good", which is a term that I doubt anyone is ever going to be able to define concretely. I call good wrestling good art, you call good wrestling good business. It's eternally subjective.

 

[klunderbunker]

Then we find ourselves quibbling over the definition of "good", which is a term that I doubt anyone is ever going to be able to define concretely. I call good wrestling good art, you call good wrestling good business. It's eternally subjective.

See that's just it: there's no way to judge something's artistic value. I know what my opinion is on it, but there are always going to be people that disagree, like you do, which is fine. However, as you said you can't argue WWE is more financially successful, which is the point. Saying a band is better than another can never be proven, no matter what someone says or how much they know about music.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

KB have you done WM 15.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yep.

 

[SD619]

Could you review Smackdown: September 26,2002

Could you do this one. It was the SmackDown where Edge and Eddie had the No-DQ match which was the top match in the best of SmackDown DVD.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah it's on my lsit.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

Have you done Nitro #28

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Have you done Vengeance 2002, if not could you do that one?

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes to both.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

Man KB you need a real challenge for a review. I'm gonna find the worst PPV/TV Show so you can review.

 

[Da Prophet]

Raw July 1, 2002.

 

[Stormtrooper]

WWF Smackdown from July 20th, 2000.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

Have you done Backlash '03

 

[klunderbunker]

Backlash is going to be the last WWE series I do.