Comments that don't warrant a thread - Part 3

[Victator]

So ROH has started giving godawful nicknames to their roster members:

 

"Killer" Kenny King (KKK!)

And to think ROH booked a show at the Apollo Theater.

[Strummer]

Brooke has learned from her father I guess. She is implying that the Knockouts division will be a shoot:

 

 

"I think everyone is forgetting that they have a story and they have drama in their lives. What I admire so much about TNA is right now fans think that they know wrestling. They are like “oh everything is set up, all the storylines, all the plans, it’s a soap opera for men.” And its true, that’s been happening for years in the wrestling business. What TNA is doing now is, and they couldn’t do it without whats really going on right now, these girls, they all actually have drama happening. There are people that are divorced, both working for TNA, dating other people. There is craziness going on. What’s great about TNA is that they are going back to real life and these matches are going to be between people who really have something to fight out. If they want to hurt each other, that’s their thing. But as far as I’m concerned we are making this more real. That’s why I’m coming in. There are personal issues behind closed doors that we need to resolve."

[Strummer]

From reading Punk's Twitter I think he is pretty douche-y. I probably would be, too, if I could say I slept with each and every WWE Diva

I would agree that he comes off smarmy and somewhat conceited on Twitter but he is pretty great on televised media/radio. There is no sarcasm font!

[El-P]

So, the WWE is ruining the only thing that's good in their product today. CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan was too good I guess, so we really needed Kane thrown in the mix.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

From reading Punk's Twitter I think he is pretty douche-y. I probably would be, too, if I could say I slept with each and every WWE Diva

I would agree that he comes off smarmy and somewhat conceited on Twitter but he is pretty great on televised media/radio. There is no sarcasm font!

 

I've only heard Punk outside of wrestling on the Art of Wrestling and Bill Simmons' podcast. He was great on AOW and kind of an a-hole on Simmons.

[NintendoLogic]

So, the WWE is ruining the only thing that's good in their product today. CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan was too good I guess, so we really needed Kane thrown in the mix.

I view Bryan and Punk as this era's Bret and Shawn. They're the consistently brightest spots in a product that is overall rather lackluster.

[Johnny Sorrow]

So, the WWE is ruining the only thing that's good in their product today. CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan was too good I guess, so we really needed Kane thrown in the mix.

 

The thing is, guys like Punk and Bryan probably both welcome a vet they respect like Kane into the angle. Net fans will wail and cry, but I'd imagine that actual workers respect each other.

[El-P]

So, the WWE is ruining the only thing that's good in their product today. CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan was too good I guess, so we really needed Kane thrown in the mix.

 

The thing is, guys like Punk and Bryan probably both welcome a vet they respect like Kane into the angle. Net fans will wail and cry, but I'd imagine that actual workers respect each other.

 

Who gives a shit if work collegues are smiling at each others really ? The fact is WWE is throwing Kane, freakin' Kane, in the middle of CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan who just had an awesome match at the PPV. They already sitcomised the fued a bit with AJ, but as long as it doesn't get too silly, it's ok. But Kane... I was tired of Kane by the fall of 1998. Shitty worker involved in an endless number of shitty feuds. We're in 2012, and Kane is thrown into a world title match. In term of pure time frame, it's the same thing as having Big John Studd, who was big in 1984, in a main event in 1998. It's been 14 years of shitty Kane matches and angle, the guy is still chokeslamming people, whoupidoo !!

[Matt D]

It's not like that at all. Studd was completely immobile in 88. There's a lot that Kane can still do and he's a pretty savvy guy. He likes matches with size differences quite a bit and I imagine that they'll be able to do something very self aware and smart if it becomes a three way. I'm interested to see how they put it together, probably more interested than I'd be in another Punk vs Bryan match because past building a little on the last one, I'm not sure how they could do something better than that right now. I think it would have been a lot more of the same, and while that's great, this is wildly different and I kind of want to see it.

[El-P]

I knew someone would drop the "Big John Stuff was immobile" line. It's not my point. My point is that a guy who was main eventing 14 years ago is still thrown into a title match now, which is the equivalent of a guy main eventing in 1984 still getting thrown in a title match in 1998. Of course I picked Studd because he was a monster like Kane, and of course I'm aware Studd was ten times worse than Kane, and of course I'm aware than no one who was around in 1984 was still there at the same position 14 years later after working non-stop for the company (can you picture 14 years of John Studd, or anyone that was just not very good for that matter, and still being on top on cards when Austin got on top ?)

 

So, the point is, they couldn't do better so we'll assure they'll do a lot worse throwing in a shitty worker no one cares about (really, Kane in 2012) into the mix ? Great idea.

And yeah, I'm also waiting for the "But Kane is a good worker" line (well, you kinda dropped it already) that will probably pop out too.

 

Man, WM and Brock returning has brought me back to somewhat watch WWE programmings, but two months in and I've already banged my head against the wall too much...

[Matt D]

I knew someone would drop the "Big John Stuff was immobile" line. It's not my point. My point is that a guy who was main eventing 14 years ago is still thrown into a title match now, which is the equivalent of a guy main eventing in 1984 still getting thrown in a title match in 1998. Of course I picked Studd because he was a monster like Kane, and of course I'm aware Studd was ten times worse than Kane, and of course I'm aware than no one who was around in 1984 was still there at the same position 14 years later after working non-stop for the company (can you picture 14 years of John Studd, or anyone that was just not very good for that matter, and still being on top on cards when Austin got on top ?)

 

So, the point is, they couldn't do better so we'll assure they'll do a lot worse throwing in a shitty worker no one cares about (really, Kane in 2012) into the mix ? Great idea.

And yeah, I'm also waiting for the "But Kane is a good worker" line (well, you kinda dropped it already) that will probably pop out too.

 

Man, WM and Brock returning has brought me back to somewhat watch WWE programmings, but two months in and I've already banged my heads against the wall too much...

You are the grumpiest guy ever. I bet it'd be way more fun to watch wrestling with Johnny Sorrow than with you.

 

Hey, guess what? Kane is a pretty good worker. He just works a style that you don't like, and you have very particular tastes, which is okay, but seriously I don't think you SHOULD watch WWE programming. You'll just cause yourself pain.

 

Also, Kane in a World title match in 2012 is still more credible than Daniel Bryan in a world title match in 2012. We might rather DB be there, but I think it's a huge jump, both kayfabe and otherwise, to think that Kane isn't considered more credible in a ton of ways.

[El-P]

You are the grumpiest guy ever.

Hey, I *am* grumpy. Tenryu is my hero.

 

I bet it'd be way more fun to watch wrestling with Johnny Sorrow than with you.

No idea. I am having tons of fun watching SMW TV these days and watch every Ron Wright promo with a large smirk on my face.

 

Hey, guess what? Kane is a pretty good worker. He just works a style that you don't like, and you have very particular tastes, which is okay, but seriously I don't think you SHOULD watch WWE programming. You'll just cause yourself pain.

Well, I did enjoy quite a bit of stuff on WWE TV, mostly Punk stuff, loved Cena vs Lesnar, really enjoyed Cena vs Rock, loved every minute of Punk vs Daniel Bryan, so there is some great stuff that I'm glad I'm seeing. But the bad stuff is indeed causing me great anguish (well, not that much, but you get the idea)

 

Also, Kane in a World title match in 2012 is still more credible than Daniel Bryan in a world title match in 2012. We might rather DB be there, but I think it's a huge jump, both kayfabe and otherwise, to think that Kane isn't considered more credible in a ton of ways.

Size matters, uh ?

I was sick of Glen Jacobs, let me things... hum... about after SummerSlam 95. But seriously, I can't fathom how people still want to watch him after 14 years of hell fire and brimstone and chokeslamming people and doing the shittiest flying clothesline ever. Kane as been okay at best, and had some good matches with good workers, but really...

[Matt D]

Presentation matters. Especially over time.

 

Guess who worked a main event on a PPV this year? Guess who got the expensive repackage? Who won at Mania. Not the guy who was booked as a vulnerable heel champion, lost in 17 seconds at Mania, lost his rematch in a match with stips he wanted, lost his first shot at Punk.

 

Size doesn't hurt, but booking matters.

 

They've been trying to rectify that a little bit in the last month, but I don't think DB has been protected well or presented all that well. They weren't planning on going with him long term before the Yes stuff picked up and changed his life, so it's been a slow course change and while all of that works when he HAS the belt, it's a little wonky when he's chasing it.

 

And Kane's a good worker in the right situations, and a lot smarter than he was in 95. He's been at this for a while and he's worked just about every good wrestler they've had for 15 years.

[El-P]

Expensive repackage ? Yeah, no shit, after all the nonsense over the years, now he looks the exact same as he did 14 years ago. That's some expensive repackaging.

 

Booking matters indeed, and they can't book for shit, as it's been demonstrated over the few months I've been back watching.

[Victator]

Yeah, no shit, after all the nonsense over the years, now he looks the exact same as he did 14 years ago.

Not really.

[El-P]

Yeah, no shit, after all the nonsense over the years, now he looks the exact same as he did 14 years ago.

Not really.

 

Okay, I give you that. He looks the same as he did 12 years ago actually.

[Victator]

Yeah, no shit, after all the nonsense over the years, now he looks the exact same as he did 14 years ago.

Not really.

 

Okay, I give you that. He looks the same as he did 12 years ago actually.

 

Again not really.

[El-P]

You're right, I checked. He looks like he did in 2001 which is exactly 11 years ago. Huge difference. (waiting for more nitpicking)

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Serious question for Matt D, who I think watches wrestling a lot differently to many people, and because of which I always enjoy reading his thoughts:

 

Would you rather watch a guy challenge for the title who you think is pretty worthless as a wrestler, but has been booked as a credible challenger (I know Kane doesn't fit this criteria for you, or for me either, for the record), or a guy who you think is great, but hasn't really been booked credibly at all? I wish I had examples, but I don't really know who you think is good (or rather, who you think is not good, since you generally seem to be positive in your comments).

[Loss]

I always find Matt D's thoughts interesting. From what I can gather, he likes wrestlers who can convey the big picture stuff really well, and matches that keep it simple and grand. Is that accurate?

[Matt D]

Two slightly different questions here, and I'm not always introspective about this, so bear with me. I'll be brief. This might be unsatisfying and I'm sorry if it is.

 

Serious question for Matt D, who I think watches wrestling a lot differently to many people, and because of which I always enjoy reading his thoughts:

 

Would you rather watch a guy challenge for the title who you think is pretty worthless as a wrestler, but has been booked as a credible challenger (I know Kane doesn't fit this criteria for you, or for me either, for the record), or a guy who you think is great, but hasn't really been booked credibly at all? I wish I had examples, but I don't really know who you think is good (or rather, who you think is not good, since you generally seem to be positive in your comments).

I had a long response going into why I watch what I watch, but to put it far more simply.. When I was young I liked spotfets, then workrate, hunted four and five star matches. As I got older, I started to like whole shows, and then whole YEARS. I started to really like seeing things in context and how everything fit, the broader scheme of all that wrestling entails. Some of it was because I became a more passive watcher for various reasons and couldn't hyper focus on matches ALL the time I could devote to wrestling. Some of it was more availability of things like 80s Memphis and Mid South and even seasons of Superstars and WCW SN, some was just nostaglia blossoming out as I learned to appreciate things.

 

I think the end result is this. I like really good matches. Absolutely. (and I'll get into Loss' question on what I consider good in a second). And I love when I'm emotionally invested, sure, but I'm not sure A GREAT MATCH FULL OF EXCITING WORKRATE is what really draws me anymore. I like to see things over time. I like to see patterns. I like to see how a wrestler deals with different situations, how he interacts with other wrestlers and in other feuds. I love old Event Centers where guys are cutting promos on each other, or the old Worldwide promos where a wrestler will talk about all sorts of stuff happening on the show that has nothing to do with him. I love battle royales where a heel suddenly finds himself in against another heel he's not used to working with, and just how both guys manage that situation. I started watching what was actually there instead of trying to hone in on exactly what I thought I wanted to see and I found a lot to really like and appreciate. I think when you're watching something at the time, you have more of an emotional stake in it being "good" and well-received than if you're just watching something old on your own. The argument isn't nearly as pressing.

 

I was never the sort of guy to come up with a theory and then try to find evidence for it. That's not how I did my thesis either. I looked at a lot of data and then I tried to make sense of it. That's how the Demolition Project happened. I just happened to watch a number of matches in my general chronological late 80s WWF watching, and I started to see patterns and then tracked them down and found more, and I decided to write about what I found. I wasn't looking for anything at all. I'm usually not, but I almost always find SOMETHING.

 

I guess my answer to you is that I love it when things are done well or are done interestingly. That could be a great build for what might be a pretty piss poor wrestling match or it might be a great match that just happens to have a terrible build, and if I had to choose, I'd have a bit of A and a bit of B, to be honest. I GOT the Bryan vs Punk match I wanted. I loved that match. I'm good for now. They gave me everything i wanted from that match up right now. I don't think they could add a ton with a rematch right now. I'd watch it, sure, and probably enjoy it, but they scratched my itch. I might want to see them go at it again in a few months if situations change a bit, but for now, I actually dig the idea of Kane being thrown into the mix. It changes things 180 degrees, just like that. They gave us EXACTLY what we expected from them before, and it was great, but now, Kane's tossed into the mix and I have no idea what they're going to do with him and that's exciting to me in a way a rematch wouldn't be. I get why people are upset about this, but I'm not. Will it make as good of a match? Probably not. I'm still more interested to see the three-way than a rematch, since I have no idea what it's going to look like and am really curious with how they're going to pull it off.

 

So yeah, my cop out answer is that if I had to pick either or, I'd want the variety of a little of both. I enjoy good build. And I'm open to a lot of matches and even a lot of builds. A lot of what I thought was terrible as a kid was just not to my specific tastes. It doesn't mean it didn't accomplish what it was meant to or that there wasn't both skill and knowledge involved.

 

I always find Matt D's thoughts interesting. From what I can gather, he likes wrestlers who can convey the big picture stuff really well, and matches that keep it simple and grand. Is that accurate?

I'm not sure I would have put it this way. I'm not sure I'd argue either. I like the sound of it.

 

In general, I want story, not action (or workrate as I saw it in 2000). Now, if someone can give me both story and action, that's great. They're not mutually exclusive, except for of course that they kind of are. One element of storytelling is knowing when to hold back, is knowing when to rein in the action. I just want every little thing that happens in a match to have consequence and to have meaning, to happen for a logical reason, and to ultimately make sense. If it's simple, that's better than it not existing at all. If it's subtle, even better than simple. Wrestling is fiction. I do want to watch guys convey the big picture stuff really well. And more than that, I want there just to be a big picture!

 

Sure it's exciting watching guys pinball and bump all over the ring for each other, but I've seen hundreds of those sort of matches. I'd rather see a simple match that makes sense and has meaning and resonance, than a complex match that goes a mile a minute but has no meaning and doesn't hold up. That said, I do appreciate cool little things: leverage moves, holds, reversals. I love the building blocks, don't get me wrong, but when they're used poorly or without meaning, it bugs me. That's the only thing in watching wrestling that really bugs me right now.

 

Wrestling doesn't have to be simple, but a lot of times it's better when it is, because so few wrestlers seem to be able to be able to manage complex without losing coherence. So few wrestlers seem to even WANT to try.

[NintendoLogic]

The problem is that triple threat matches and matches with Kane both tend to suck. Additions to a match shouldn't be things you have to creatively work around.

[Log]

Wasn't Big John Studd dead in 1998?

[Dylan Waco]

Kane is a guy that has surprised me enough times where I have pulled him out of the "guys I never want to see wrestle again" category, but he almost never interest me and if we are calling him a good worker I would say we are setting the bar really low and this is coming from a guy who is pretty confident I could name 500 guys who I think are good workers relatively easily.

 

I have no interest in him being interjected into this feud for a multitude of reasons:

 

1. There is absolutely no good reason to do it. Even if they are doing bad quarter hours with Bryan/Punk (and I'm not sure they are), not even the most serious Kane fan can honestly think "this will pop a rating!" Instead this reeks of the standard with Kane which is "we don't know what to do with him, we'll plug him into a feud with wrestler x for a while." Punk v. Bryan got a great reaction at the ppv, they had a great match and it is a feud that was looking like it was helping both guys in some ways - adding Kane does what exactly and serves what purpose?

 

2. I hate triple threat matches to the point there is almost no other style of match I would rather watch less even between great workers. In the last six months I have been to two WWE house shows main evented by triple threats comprised entirely by very good to great workers. Neither match was even in the same universe of what it would have been had it been a singles match involving any combination of those guys even if they were (justifiably) working a safer house show style. As a rule the psych of the matches sucks, the selling has to be all over the place, the transitions usually stink, things are too cutesy, et. I believe this will probably be a good match, as they house show main events I saw were. But a singles match would have had a near 100 percent chance of being a great match.

 

3. I don't care about Kane. Aside from Orton (maybe) there is no other "main event" level guy I care less about. I admit the set up for this has been fairly well executed and the segment on Raw this week came off well - and I STILL don't care about Kane.

 

4. I fear this is all a set up for some stupid Lita style rehash with AJ which has potential to be amusing but further sink these guys into the abyss of a lengthy Kane program which is something I REALLY don't want.

 

5. I think the association with Kane hurts Punk at a period where his reign is already devalued and he's being positioned as a clear secondary level star despite having the title. The Bryan feud had a chance to at least put the emphasis on the wrestling while they are doing the Cena "super fights" gimmick on the top of the shows. Now that is out the window.

 

I'll stop there but I could keep going

[Matt D]

I think one thing I was getting at is that I sort of see that as an intellectual exercise for Bryan and Punk, like a writing challenge you do to stretch your mental muscles. I'm kind of interested in seeing that. I feel like it's the sort of scenario that doesn't come up in wrestling all that often. (Danielson vs Kamala was one and did that ever work out poorly). I want to see them crack that Triple Threat problem.

 

That said, I have no idea WHY they're doing it other than lack of faith in Punk vs Bryan. I was talking to Mark about it and he thought it was a no-brainer that it was a way to get the belt onto DB without Punk eating the fall, but I'm not sure I buy that.