jdw Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think the picture above is terribly flattering to Michelle facially/head. Lighting and graininess is part of it... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 I feel like this is a constant unfair criticism of WrestleMania. Essentially it boils down to you either think that Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker shouldn't be on the card because they overshadow the regular card, or you think that Cena/Rock and HHH/Taker should be for the titles because they are the biggest matches on the card and the titles should be the most important thing. It would be fine if it was just an ocasional thing but it's been a pretty consistent pattern for a while now whear they haven't been presented as the most important thing on the show. Including Mania, the RAW world title Punk has will have been defended in the main event of a PPV exactly 1 time in a 6 month span. I can't recall the last time the Smackdown title got the main event but it's been much longer then 6 months. Meanwhile, without having either title, John Cena will have still been in the main event of 3 PPVs within that same time frame and of the PPVs he wasn't the main event of, 1 he didn't wrestle on at all and the other was the Rumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Santo is saving his gimmick for his son. He unveiled him a few years ago at one of the big shows when his son was either 9 or 13 and it even made one of the lucha magazine covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 I remember reading an interview with El Hijo Del Santo discussing his son and the Santo gimmick. If I remember correctly, Santo stated that if his son isn't good enough (or lives up to the Santo standard) then the Santo gimmick would be retired with El Hijo Del Santo. So Santo really expects a certain level of quality/standard from everything I've heard or read. It's not a guarantee that his son will be getting the gimmick. If his son isn't good by Santito's standards, then he's not getting the gimmick. El Hijo Del Santo is very protective of his father's legacy. I think this was even briefly mentioned in the Observer once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Honestly, I don't see a problem with that. If you look at a guy like David Flair, that might have actually given him a chance at having a career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Super Luchas just threw this up today. This was from earlier this week. Taker doesn't look a day under 60 here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Honestly, I don't see a problem with that. If you look at a guy like David Flair, that might have actually given him a chance at having a career. Diffrent situation tho. It's one thing not to want your kid to take the family name because it would put a certain lvl of unfair exspectations & presssure on him when he's just starting out and you want him to earn his way in the business & stand on his own. It's entirely diffrent to tell your kid you can't have the name because you're a fuck up who's not good enough & will tarnish the legacy. For as crappy as David was for a while (he got decent enough by the end) he didn't hurt Ric's reputation one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 For as crappy as David was for a while (he got decent enough by the end) he didn't hurt Ric's reputation one bit. Ric did much more harm to his own legend than David ever could actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Honestly, I don't see a problem with that. If you look at a guy like David Flair, that might have actually given him a chance at having a career. Diffrent situation tho. It's one thing not to want your kid to take the family name because it would put a certain lvl of unfair exspectations & presssure on him when he's just starting out and you want him to earn his way in the business & stand on his own. It's entirely diffrent to tell your kid you can't have the name because you're a fuck up who's not good enough & will tarnish the legacy. For as crappy as David was for a while (he got decent enough by the end) he didn't hurt Ric's reputation one bit. It made Ric look like a shitty father. That didn't hurt Ric's reputation any. That's because he was already known as a shitty father. David's gimmick was essentially guy with shitty father. And even on a gimmick level "the jet flying, wheeling dealing, kiss stealin, stylin, profilin'" is the gimmick of a guy who is a failure as a family man. Santito isn't Ric Flair. Guy working the son of Santo gimmick being concerned that a guy who is unprepared working a grandson of Santo gimmick could easily reflect poorly on him isn't that crazy. It doesn't seem half as ridiculous as the WWE renaming Shane Helms, Gregory to avoid confusion with Shane McMahon or renaming Lance Cade Garrison to avoid confusion with Lance Storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 I dunno, i'd say telling your kid/nephew/whatever "you suck so much i'm ashamed to admit we're related" is equally as big of a dick move as being the absentee womanizing dad. On that scale, I wonder whear the Lawler/Brian Christopher relationship of "I don't wanna admit i'm your dad cause it might scare off the young rats i'm trying to score with to know i'm old enough to be a grand father now" fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Pro Wrestling NOAH revealed Yakuza ties a couple of days ago. Safe to say that's probably game over for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Chris Benoit killed his family and the media (rightly or wrongly) went to great lengths to suggest that the prevalence of steroids in the business was the cause. If that did not take down the WWE, I find it hard to believe that equally "everyone already knows this" case of mafia influence in Japanese promotions will do the trick over there. Though NOAH is far worse off so who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Pride was dead within months of their Yakuza connections being revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Plus, big difference between one man's actions and allying yourself with organized crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 The point was that the media didn't treat it as "one man's actions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I doubt it will have the same effect that it had on PRIDE. DSE lost Fuji TV. NOAH doesn't have anything to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Chris Benoit killed his family and the media (rightly or wrongly) went to great lengths to suggest that the prevalence of steroids in the business was the cause. If that did not take down the WWE, I find it hard to believe that equally "everyone already knows this" case of mafia influence in Japanese promotions will do the trick over there. Though NOAH is far worse off so who knows I don't think the American and Japanese media would necessarily have the same response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Not only was 2007 WWE in much better shape than 2012 NOAH, there's a pretty big difference in how wrestling is perceived in the two countries. In the US, it's bottom of the barrel lowbrow entertainment, so another helping of sleaze isn't going to have much impact. I think the only thing that would seriously hurt the WWE is something implicating John Cena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I don't even think that would. WWE would just throw Cena under the bus. As long as the first thought people have when they think of wrestling is that it's fake, which is what most people think even before they think it's sleazy, WWE will be able to get away with pretty much anything because the people involved aren't seen as real people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Chris Benoit killed his family and the media (rightly or wrongly) went to great lengths to suggest that the prevalence of steroids in the business was the cause. If that did not take down the WWE, I find it hard to believe that equally "everyone already knows this" case of mafia influence in Japanese promotions will do the trick over there. Though NOAH is far worse off so who knows The NOAH situation is more like steroids in baseball. The media and the fans know it's there and that their favorite promotion has Yakuza ties. But the second it comes to light, they all freak out anyway and shun whoever the wrongdoer is. It's that weird kind of dynamic going on over there. I doubt it will have the same effect that it had on PRIDE. DSE lost Fuji TV. NOAH doesn't have anything to lose. It could drive away what little fan base they have left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Reading a bunch through this thread: Bix QUOTE(rovert @ Mar 8 2012, 09:29 AM) QUOTE(goodhelmet @ Mar 8 2012, 01:46 PM) QUOTE(Jingus @ Mar 7 2012, 11:07 AM) Wasn't there a report of a suicide attempt at some point as well, after she left TNA? Between that and this and occasional other stuff (beating up Bubba the Love Sponge backstage) it's looking like she's got some rather serious psychological issues which need a lot of treatment. Beating up Bubba the Love Sponge was well-deserved and doesn't demonstrate mental instability. Not being able to control your temper and lashing out violently in a work environment kinda does. What he said. This isn't a normal work enviroment. This is the completely backwards prowrestling work enviroment. She isn't going to go to HR when someone is offensive. When Mark Henry did the functional equivalent of going to HR when he was offended by a backstage guys behavior, it was criticized within the wrestling community. "Why did he complain instead of just punching him?" It's wrestling. Lashing out violently is the normative behavior. No it's not normal, not in today's corporate environment where there are parent companies and stockholders who are open to lawsuits from such actions. Locker room beatdowns, which used to be a common occurrence (and still are on the outlaw indy scene), have become pretty rare in big televised wrestling. How many other examples can you name from TNA in the past few years where something similar happened? It's refreshing to see that Low Ki hasn't changed AT ALL in the last 14 years and is still the dick head he's always been. I'll always remember Low Ki flipping out on a CZW show because he thought there was some kind of screw job happening when he injured someone and they weren't able to finish the match, resulting in one of the security guys just picking him up like he was a small child throwing a tantrum and carrying him to the back: One of the funniest, bizarre things to have happened on the indies in the last 15 years, yet it isn't remembered too well because people were always intimidated by the guy. Hah! That's awesome. When did this happen? I'm at a loss as to why anyone would be intimidated by Low-Ki. Just because he has a deep voice and is a sloppy worker? It's not like he's a physical giant or possesses any legit shooting skills that I'm aware of to make people think he could beat anyone's ass legit.Why did people think Taz was some kind of legit bad ass for years? Guess they were just good enough at getting over their characters that people believed. Taz worked a faux-MMA style back when nobody else did that, and the character was performed and booked very well. Not really difficult to figure out, he was basically portrayed as Short Goldberg, except his background was in judo rather than football. Although, I'd argue that Taz shootplexing a knocked-the-fuck-out Paul Varelans was a more impressive accomplishment than anything Low-Ki's ever done. That was one big goddamn sandbag of dead weight, and Taz still lifted and planted him perfectly. What's Ki ever done? (On purpose, not a "whoopsie, sorry about that broken nose and concussion!" sloppy-ass sucker-kick?) He choked out an aging, possibly-not-sober Chris Candido once; but that's hardly an accomplishment considering Ki managed to pick a fight with the one guy who might be even smaller than himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 No it's not normal, not in today's corporate environment where there are parent companies and stockholders who are open to lawsuits from such actions. Locker room beatdowns, which used to be a common occurrence (and still are on the outlaw indy scene), have become pretty rare in big televised wrestling. How many other examples can you name from TNA in the past few years where something similar happened? I don't in general read backstage gossip, but there is Booker T/Batista confrontation, the Joey Styles/ JBL one, near the end of Helms' career in the WWE the torch was writing about how he still is respected for hitting Bagwell. And there was gossip that Henry response to Hayes (treating it as you would in a corporate enviroment) was considered inappropriate. In 2008 to "teach" Coachman "a lesson" when he didn't appear scared enough when wrestlers brawled near announce table...he was set out into the ring where multiple guys stiffly hit unprotected versions of their finishers on him. Is that how things are normally done in a corporate enviroment with parent companies and stockholders open to lawsuits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Firstly: those are all WWE, not TNA. Secondly: that's still a much shorter list than you had in previous decades. Thirdly: you could only name two real examples of this stuff even happening in the last decade. There's more examples specifically involving Shawn Michaels getting the shit kicked out of him in the 90s than there are in the entire industry today. See my point? Things have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Again I haven't read the Torch (which has the inside track on TNA gossip) in over a decade...but my sense is that TNa in most regards is run in an even more piddling half assed way than the WWE. The "two real examples" in WWE that were reported in the Observer were reported as though they were only notable in that lower ranked guys won fights with higher ranked guys...with the question being that Vince apparently has changed pushes/lost faith in guys when higher ranked guys lose fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Did Vince really lose faith in Batista after his fight with Booker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts