smkelly

WTF? Really? I've never heard that but it does make sense. The WWE routinely dump guys who they know are about to collapse at any given moment, even champions and bigger stars. And if it is true, and not just another Everyone Holds Me Back Ric Flair stories, then holy crap. Mostly because the death of Ric Flair will probably end up in a TNA ring, probably a non-televised event too. I mean, at least we don't have to guess whether he is selling or not, he's old, of course it hurts. I wish someone would do an intervention on some of these guys. But I guess there are some dudes who cannot quit. It's all they know. It just sucks watching some of these guys get so fucking old and falling apart before our eyes.

And the election thing probably had something to do with years of being the go-between-man for the Yakuza and foreign criminals, like Castro and Saddam Hussein, let alone the little fuck head in North Korea. Seriously. It's Inoki, man. Its gotta be something fucked up. That or he's rich like the politicians in America, which is pretty much one of the only requirements to be a leader nowadays.

I forgot to mention the shock that some experience when they realize the shit they see on TV actually hurts. Kind of like how Hugh Jackman reacted when he ran off the ropes and they didn't really budge.

It varies in my opinion. Kobashi had to reinvent himself so he could continue wrestling. I think after the knee operations of the century is when he should have called it quits. His match against Misawa in '03 was a telling sign that his career was coming to a close. He should have retired permanently after cancer. He came back for a while, a complete 360 change from only a decade prior. Then his elbow went out on him. His body simply cannot function the way it used to. It doesn't matter how much time he spends in the gym or how many pills he takes to subdue the pain he is in, you can't fix something that is broken. I guess when a wrestler looks back at his career and sees long periods of inactivity due to injury and/or illness is a good starting point when to consider hanging 'em up. But stepping into that reality is a different thing altogether.

Heels are as a different as faces, though. Like there is a difference between the templates of Cena and Savage as faces. Cena is the One Man Army. Like Sgt. Rock, the Hulk, or Superman. Savage is the Maniac. Like Animal, the Tazmanian Devil, or Wolverine. There are similar templates for heels. nWo Hogan was the cowardly heel who had others fight the larger bloodier battles for him. Was the perennial champion, though was largely undeserving because he never really beat anyone by himself. Could be associated with a politician. 80s Ric Flair was the cowardly heel that played off the rich frat boy image – strength through numbers and lots of parties, booze, and loose women. Rick Rude had the body of Adonis. And he was extremely cocky and arrogant about it. Adrian Adonis did not have the body of Adonis, but thought he did. A faker. A fraud. Vince McMahon is the evil American corrupt boss. The kind of boss everyone wants to see trip and fall down. His money and power has corrupted his soul. Mr. Perfect was supposed to be the “perfect man.” The gimmick was unique at first, but wasn’t directed in the proper regards, as well the fact Curt was employed by the wrong company. Honestly though, the Mr. Perfect gimmick would have fit Rude better. Rude had the body to back up the connotations behind Mr. Perfect. But at the root of the gimmick is why it would be a great heel gimmick – the perfect man. Arrogance is bound to follow. To the contrary, if someone pulled an Adrian Adonis with the Mr. Perfect gimmick, then it would work too. Triple H and Randy Orton used a colder and calculated heel checklist – which I think the nicknames associated with the Cerebral Assassin for Hunter and the Viper for Orton are telling templates for both men. While Flair and his Horsemen broke legs, Orton tried to end careers by field goal kicking them in the head, and Hunter bashes people with a nine-pound sledgehammer. They were cowardly when confronted head-on, but if given the chance, they were willing to turn the dial to eleven. Both men have spent years trying to be talkers like Piper or Flair, but they are simply better suited to the ‘vicious’ from behind attacks than busting out A+ promos. Edge was the cowardly opportunist. He was a bastard. Eddy and Chavo were cowardly opportunists as well, but with a more comical presentation. Santino is a good example of the buffoon heel – a dork that is often funny, but annoying as hell, but surprisingly forward in a lot of his actions because they lead him to great physical pain. Michael Cole is less funny, and even more annoying. JBL is the money-flaunting prejudiced Texan. Holier-than-thou in all respects. The “Million Dollar Man” Ted DiBiase took the overabundance of money heelishness in a different direction; he tried to buy his way into the top and he had a black servant. JBL did too for a short time. They were consist in the “too much money = greed and lack of morality” debate. Alberto del Rio is the modern translation of the immigrant problem in America. And it is a successful immigrant story because del Rio is JBL rich. If he were presented more like JBL, he’d be the best realistic heel the WWE has had since JBL. Eddy Guerrero and Bret Hart played angry minorities/foreigners. They questioned America and by default, Americans. Their remarks were geared towards making people more patriotic. Sgt. Slaughter was a traitor during wartime. Shane Douglas and Jeff Jarrett were cowardly heels who could talk a huge game but hardly ever win any type of match cleanly. They loved to be champion but refused and tried to hide from defending their won championships. They were womanizers, liars, thieves, cowards, manipulators, and greedy, among other things. They were small man nWo Hulk Hogan’s during some pivotal years. They also exhibited some extreme heel tendencies – like Douglas attacking the Pit Bull that had a broken neck. Mark Henry and Vader are the standard definition of monster heel. They’re monsters of men. And they generally pick on littler guys but can also take out a giant. The arch of big versus small has been popular for a very long time. Guys like Umaga added a twist to the monster gimmick – culture and stereotypes associated with primitive third-world or outside the grid cultures. Mankind was the backwoods heel straight out of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie series. Insane, unpredictable, and willing to take absurd amounts of punishment, which he liked anyway, and looked the part of some inbred half-breed monster a person might run into out in the country where towns have a population below several hundred. Sheamus at first was a straight ahead, no fear, IRA like solider, i.e. a powerful foreigner. He was a unique heel for modern WWE – a heel that was largely unafraid of the lead face and backed up what was perceived as arrogance. And he did it cleaner and in a less cowardly fashion than what Scott Steiner accomplished in WCW. Guys like the Undertaker, Kane, and the Brood (all versions) were good heels for the occult world. Raven was a good heel for the Kurt Cobain early 90s apathy movement. The RTC were good heels for the evil that is censorship. Goldust was a perfect heel with his transgender/sexually confused gimmick a la Marilyn Manson.

Like I said, it wasn't to be taken at an offensive point-of-view. You bring interesting concepts of new discussion to the board. Though, to be completely honest, your general "thread worthy" question is often answered at the conclusion of 'your' first post. It often seems as you're testing the waters to confirm what the general public around here perceive as quality wrestling or the extent of their knowledge, whatever, which is in comparison to the other places you frequent, i.e. "surface level material." I think a solution to that is utilizing the more historical aspects of pro wrestling as guidelines - a catch-all thread, if you will. Think of some of the most recent threads: The best heel The best face Match structure WCW's "big" show ...etc... Though they're excellent conversation starters, they're not as quantifiable to the level I always presume you're trying to take them to. There was some mid-level trolling going on about whether or not Jerry Lawler never no-sold. Even though there is observable evidence to the contrary, some hold that belief nevertheless. So we can all say what we think makes or breaks a character set, or what the difference is between match structures, but those things are all subjective. And they're pretty well-known to the general public that frequent this board - they have a general idea of what selling is and the overall importance it holds over a match. While I have questioned in the past (recently too) particular names of tropes in match contexts, I knew the checkboxes that were attributed to the trope - like Southern tag. Though I think having a dictionary of sorts would be a cool thing. Plenty of posters around here enjoying typing out long posts. 1 + 1 = 2. Someone like Dylan could write an awesome catch-all definition about the Southern tag. Jdw could explain the All Japan style. Ditch has solid roots in puroresu as well. Naylor can pinpoint a squash match like none other. FLIK knows joshi. There are a lot of posters here, many I did not mention, who can bring a large batch of knowledge and history to the table at any given moment. Cannot agree more. It seems the older I get, the more I want to learn about history. The historical side of professional wrestling tells a very unique story. It is a form of entertainment that has evolved over a century. A form of entertainment that is largely unwatched by a sizable world-wide population. And while today's information will be tomorrow's history, it is generally the same stuff over-and-over - some "old" star has taken The Wrestler to fundamentalist levels, so-and-so is sleeping with so-and-so, or Vince and Co. continued nightmarish monopoly over American wrestling. Hence my interest in pieces Meltzer tosses out every-now-and-then - like the historical piece on the sixty-minute draws that champions from "back in the day" did on a nightly basis. It's why I am a fan of the "TL;DR" posts that jdw will pump out when discussions of All Japan Pre-Split (most puroresu, actually) are floating around in the recommendation or Year Book threads, etc. When the lucha guys hope in, I read every word that they have typed. And while I like Bix's efforts to keep a history going of, well, mostly the darker side of pro wrestling, I prefer to learn about the matches and the companies I like the most. ----- I mean, this is all subjective anyway. Some don't like the same things I do. Some don't like me period. But that is simply the joy of being a fan of, well, anything. And I hope that no one that I name dropped thinks I am trying to sign them up for something, I'm not. I'm simply stating that there are guys around this site that have depths of knowledge that I am eager to have shared. And a lot of these guys are responsible for some of the best topics PWO has to offer - the aforementioned KrisZ McMahon thread, the historical and match analysis' of the TM/DK series, etc, et al. So there is reason to see that certain topics generate the most interest, and the overwhelming majority of 'em has the same central context besides wrestling - history.

I visit PWTorch for that, mostly. Eh. Things like this actually hurt my fandom in a lot of ways. I prefer to stay away from them the best I can. No offense to Jerry, but I'd prefer if the threads were made by someone else. But generally speaking, my #2. It is interesting to see where people rank things. This is my favorite area. Helps me find new stuff to watch, and the discussions are generally well worth the time to read through all the posts.

A woman seems nutty for turning down a WWE contract? I think it makes them smart considering how the WWE puts women out to pasture or buries them on Raw every week. Add in the fact that every single male wrestler (and some females too) will do everything in their power to get into her pants. Add in the insane amount of travel. Face it. Being a wrestler isn't that much of a dream job, let alone, for women who might have to do some casting couch sessions a la the porn business.

Couldn't find anything on the Torch.

Who in the hell would say something like that? Accidents happen.

I am mostly curious by the last sentence. Kinda weird that they're already putting an official title behind the incident. Kinda seems like they would be pursuing the suspected car that supposedly ran Mr. Hardy off the road. They could slide attempted murder across the table at the suspect. Wouldn't stick, but it would get him in court quicker. -- (I'm unaware of someone being apprehended. So if there is, disregard.) I'm also interested in seeing whether the allegations are true, because, if they're not, Mr. Hardy is facing a felony charge(s) himself then. Here's what I think thus far: Though, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Matt had attempted suicide. Maybe he was too scared to admit that he had just tried to off himself. Probably didn't want to face the involuntary commitment order that any ER doctor could get. I couldn't find an image of what the vehicle looked like, nor what Hardy looked like himself. If the injuries and/or damage were minimal, then I bet he was drunk. Probably sobered up from the accident and waiting for authorities to arrive on the scene. At any rate, since he was arrested the very next day for driving while impaired, the probability of it being depression and/or alcohol related is extremely high given the context of the entire situation - that being pro wrestler who is showing signs of severe mental problems, which has been largely created by an abusive lifestyle of hard drugs and alcohol. Cause I don't see a normal person "the very day after a possibly life ending ordeal" consuming alcohol to the point they've become a menace to not only himself, but to that of people around him while behind the wheel of an automobile. I can see that more with what his root problem is though.

I thought it was a 2/3 falls match with one of the falls being an Iron Man match?

I like Henry. I do. Though in the past, it might have seemed as though I didn't. I just never thought he was a super worker. Glad he's champion. I think his move set needs some updating though. His current finisher is a good fit for him, but he needs more big man power moves.

They were probably the best super babyface versus monster heel monster matches, honestly. Though I liked seeing Vader leave his feet, I liked it when Sting lifted him, but because of the weight falls backwards spot. Completely unrealistic, but a fun spot anyway.

Anyone still optimistic about the Punk/HHH feud?

(Checks DVDVR) (Still up) Wow. I expected a crashed website, honestly.

Agreed. I liked how Cena made his comeback in the LMS matching against Umaga. Lawler helped make that moment better by saying exactly the same thing Cena's facial expressions were - give me your best shot. I can dig that. Sting was good at it, like when Flair would chop him to hell, and then, nope, not working anymore. And the thing that worked about it the most in my mind was that Flair would cut Sting off by going back after his knee. Like how Cena's comeback got cut off by a dangerous looking Samoan drop. I think failed babyface comebacks are vastly superior to successful babyface comebacks. And between the parties that are arguing, I think there is some serious misinterpretations going on. The issue of Lawler never no-selling is a ridiculous thing to say. But to me it is mostly a semantics thing. El-P: SLL: In response to El-P's: Besides being a logical inconsistency, maybe El-P prefers other types of babyface comebacks more than others. Like I prefer the Japanese comeback spot of unleashing a flurry of offense, but, then immediately following that expense of energy, they collapse to the mat - Misawa and Kawada did this a lot. Maybe the point wasn't about selling, but about tropes of babyface comeback signals. Hogan had the finger waving, Warrior shook the ropes, Lawler drops the singlet, etc. I don't know, El-P didn't specify. El-P: Aha. (Cont.) Kostka: Brilliant contradiction. El-P: "Every time" is troublesome because there were times Lawler probably didn't no-sell once the strap came down to signal business was about to pick up.And again, El-P is demonstrating his dislike for the in-match tropes of traditional babyface comebacks, i.e., and in similar regards, like in Over the Top and how the hat turning was the "switch" needed to win, i.e., like the strap coming down or the vigorous shaking of ring ropes. It is a tried and cliched trope, honestly. It's too sports entertainment/hokey for me, as well. SLL: The every time part is untrue yes, but to say that Lawler never no-sold is a logical inconsistency in itself. SLL: Ditto above. It comes across that way, honestly. Just look at those who have responded against El-P. Pretty much the usual suspects from the Lawler camp. El-P: That's the way I read it. El-P: That is a textbook Hogan Hulk-Up without the theatrics and the drama. There was no-selling involved, as every stomp/kick took Lawler to a higher elevated base, and the punches, though rocking his jaw, did little to no damage at that exact moment. It worked though. It popped the crowd. The point of it all along. Lawler was a superhero in Memphis. DylanWaco: So he goes back to selling after no selling, but doesn't no sell? You don't think he was no selling? El-P's: How are any of those stupid arguments? Or are they stupid because you disagree with them? I have no doubt that you're a smart person, which you have demonstrated countless times over several boards, but this just reeks of thought police to me. Unless you have a different explanation for what I just watched (Lawler doing exactly what El-P said he has done -- and contained within a famous Lawler match no less) then I have to assume your being hostile and stubborn simply because Lawler is an untouchable. (Cont.) Well, he was no selling punches and then got rammed face first into the referees head. So what is the exact time limit that a wrestler has to no sell before it is considered no selling? I guess pro wrestling is being quantified like the two feet touch/drag and time of possession rules in football nowadays. Notice 1:38-1:41. What is that called? SLL: Besides not being the argument originally posed... Contrary to Lawler no sold all the time, yes, but not to Lawler no sold during some babyface comebacks. Like I asked Dylan, what would you call what Lawler did in the video El-P posted and mine as well? I see a less theatrical version of Hulking Up with sprinkles of no-selling on top. We've all been guilty of using the persuasive powers of statistics and appealing to authority, but we've also been prone to other things, things like mob mentality and bias. The thing this quoted part shows is some sturdy stereotyping stemming from groupthink. There are actually symptoms in all three categories of groupthink up for analysis from the Pro-Lawler Camp in this thread. Wrong where though?About Lawler never no-selling during comebacks? No, actually, El-P is right there. About Lawler always no-selling during comebacks? As I said above, the probablity of some cutoff Lawler comeback probably exists somewhere, so I am inclined to say that he is probably wrong here. I simply don't like working in quantifiable less than/perfect measures. Nothing is perfect and nothing is less than perfect. About El-P's personal preferences to wrestling? I don't see how you could call him wrong for not liking traditional babyface comebacks. Unless those psychic powers you mentioned are realz. He registers the punches more than the kicks, yes. But it doesn't look like pain, more like anger and overall expressions to tell the live audience that business is about to pick up in Memphis because the King is about to make a comeback. Sucking it up is okay for Lawler, but what about the wrestlers a large percentage of his dislike, like a Davey Richards for example. A Pro DR fan could cite that as an excuse for his lack of selling - "He's sucking it up!" Doesn't work. No-selling is no-selling across the board, no matter who does it, it is annoying. The connotations are simple, which you pointed out. Hulking Up = Hulk Hogan. But because Hogan is the standard bearer, the memes describing him have been attributed to many. But I generally use the more generalizing phrase - Superman Comeback. It describes practically the same thing - a face will stop selling damage and use some type of over visual indicator to show the crowd and his opponent that he has had enough and is about to make a comeback despite the damage he is weathering to get said comeback. The Lawler clip El-P posted is illustrative of that notion, though not a full blown comeback by any means, it was nevertheless indicative of a no-selling babyface comeback. It is a successful plot device within the context of a professional wrestling match. Whether long term or short in nature, is irrelevant, and simply because checkboxes for the term have been satisfied. Like a Ric Flair match with a high percentage of Ric Flair Spots. Doesn't need 100% of Ric Flair Spots to be a Ric Flair Match. But I guess if we're sticking closer to semantics on this debate, then no, Lawler did not Hulk Up in the traditional sense. I mean, there were no finger pointing, big boots, leg drops, no cupping of any ear. Less theatrics and overall playing to the crowd, but no-selling nonetheless.

Not around here it isn't. I meant to lol at this earlier.

WWE heel super selling is nothing different than NWA territories super selling, though.

I can already hear that the poor ratings is because of Punk, not HHH. Not to make you feel old or nothin', but that angle with Slaughter was back in the late 90s, not 2001.

He was awful. Decent as Malice in TNA though. Yeah, I watched the first few PPV, and he seemed to have improved quite a bit since the Wall days. Well, he could only improve. Okay, quit piling on. I was like 14 when The Wall debuted, so it was strictly nostalgia talking last night. Didn't have the Internet, didn't have subscriptions to newsletters, had only seen a few bootlegged tapes my cousin got straight from Japan (his pen pal from like the 4th grade or something). Basically, I didn't really know what was good/bad in the sense of what I do now. At any rate, he improved from being under the WWE development system.

The Wall was awesome in WCW.

I would assume that the transition of heehawing, sweeping stuff under the rug, and generally being biased towards not throwing someone under the bus to doing what is needed to be done, said, and made public record would be a difficult one to make. Personally, I'd throw Kurt under the bus. The man continues to make mind numbing mistakes on a yearly basis and without regard to his safety, and, that of others around him. I just want to make sure that it is known that Kurt isn't the victim here. I condemn drunk driving. Maybe Dave doesn't or maybe he doesn't want to make a complete 360 change and piss off Angle for going from an objective 5 to a subjective 11. I think what Dave said was telling enough without using profanity or playing the fatherly role in a wrestling newsletter. It pretty much called Angle a lost cause; unless, "no solution" has positive connotations I am unaware of. And I have strong personal doubts that Kurt would heed Dave's heavy approach in the manner it should dawn on him anyway if Dave had used the smite stick on him. Me thinks that Angle would look at it as words kicking his reputation and livelihood around and not see the deeper message of, "Kurt, you're messin' up, man. Bad. You've gone from being self-destructive to that of a public nuisance that dangers everyone around you. I don't need to remind you of drunk driving statistics, they're on the Internet. Google them. But becoming a statistic for booze - let alone - the possible deaths of innocent bystanders, it is a sad and miserable way to exist. You need to seek help before something truly regretful happens to either yourself, or, your actions hurt or kill someone else whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, while around the wrong man." Kurt wouldn't see it that way, but even if he did, he'd still play the injured calf and attempt to gain pity for his unfortunate "mistakes," while completely missing how badly he has fucked up - yet once again. Also. And if anything. Dave should address the wrestling "universe" as a whole when incidents like this occur. Wrestlers are continuously being busted for drunk driving. People are always quick to jump on the backs of companies once a wrestler has died. But in my opinion, the solution and remedy exists already, there just isn't a wrestling company on the globe that truly gives a damn about their performers on a personal level, but only what they can make in merchandising sales, asses in seats, and confusing numbers that relate to good PPV buys. The WWE is hammered by decades of deep dark secrets that are hidden in a variety of offices' closets. It is about time that TNA takes a few PR bitch slaps on the chin as well. They're not immune to showcasing talent that is drugged up beyond comprehension. Hell, they've had 'em main event PPVs fucked up. In any other professional career, run-ins with badges and judges usually leads to pink slips, unemployment, and public ridicule. Notwithstanding, Matt Hardy was just recently fired, which is a good thing for TNA to do, but they did it after the fact - long after they should have had him committed, which really isn't all that hard nowadays. And its not like he won't be back in six-months/one-year. They've strung Scott Hall around since 2002. Honestly, I think Kurt should be canned for this. Besides it's not his first drunk driving charge either, so I'm not being overzealous here. Any other man, well, any other non-rich person that is, they'd be incarcerated for the offense. A third offense equals big yard time. But they're rich American wrestlers. A book could be written on the amount of times that wrestlers have broken laws, whether incidental or purposely, misdemeanor or felony, and show the amount of times that wrestlers (rich American wrestlers, mind you) have served any type of justifiable sentence behind bars, without getting their drugs, their booze, their women, or their paychecks. I'm guessing the turnover ratio is probably small. Point being, there needs to be dire circumstances imposed on these guys - professionally and criminally - if there is to be any type of rehabilitation from the plague of problems the wrestling lifestyle creates in men and women. Other than steep fines, jail time, and loss of work, it's just business as usual in professional wrestling.

The thing I look at is how the WWE has been on an impulse booking binge lately. They haven't been getting the TV ratings they want. So I can see them hotshotting The Rock's return for the chance that the next Raw hits big in ratings. I hope they don't, though.

Funny video, thanks for posting that.