Childs Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 That's an overly reductionist answer, Matt. Lesnar's whole aura is built around his size and the sense that he really could tear someone's head off. So I don't think it's crazy to suggest that a skinny guy like Punk has some work to do to come off as a serious threat to Brock. I'm not saying I can't buy the feud. But I think they'd be foolish to work it without acknowledging the real-world differences between Punk and Lesnar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 And why wouldn't they? There was a three match series between Mark Henry and Punk from last April and it was probably babyface Punk's best series of matches and Punk wrestled accordingly and it worked. I can understand why someone who is 7 would have a hard time mustering a suspension of disbelief when it came to this but we understand that wrestling is fiction. There's no inherent reason to think that in the confines of professional wrestling a wrestler who's been presented as a threat to the Undertaker and that held the belt with a number of successful defenses for the better part of a year and a half can't stand up against a hulking beast who's been presented as a guy who needs his manager to help him beat a semi-retired lunk with wet tights and weird foam stuff on his chest. Wrestling in 2013 doesn't have to be "real." It just has to be consistent with its own reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I have no problem buying Punk as an opponent for Lesnar, but I'm not going to tell someone who can't that they're wrong. Suspension of disbelief isn't something you can just turn on at will like a light switch. Sure, you have to be willing to buy what the promotion is selling, but the promotion can't just tell people to shut up and enjoy it. They have to present something that fans can buy into. With that said, I don't think it'll be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I just think it's a little ridiculous in 2013 not to buy someone who was booked strongly and who wrestled fairly well and smartly in matches against Taker and Henry that I don't think anyone complained about from that level being able to wrestle against someone who can really beat people up. I just don't even understand how "suspension of disbelief" is even a thing that any of us deal with, to be honest. I tend to think that even when we enjoy a match, it's generally because we understand the match is executed and put together well and when an angle really moves us it's because we understand that it was put together well and executed well and because they actually didn't screw it up for once, that we care about the people behind the characters getting able to ply their trade in an effective way. I'm honestly not sure I know how to engage with someone who is having a problem with his suspension of disbelief on this board. Therefore, my first instinct was the rather simplistic "wrestling is fake." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 All that may be true from an intellectual standpoint, but watching wrestling isn't a purely intellectual exercise. Sometimes when you put two guys in the ring together, fans have a visceral reaction of "I'm sorry, I just can't buy into this" no matter how good the booking is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 And at the level people examine and discuss this stuff here, is that us? I mean if it is, more power to you, because you can appreciate things on a level I can't really tap into anymore. I'm just not sure how to even discuss that as a personal talking point. We could as a general one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I just don't even understand how "suspension of disbelief" is even a thing that any of us deal with, to be honest. I tend to think that even when we enjoy a match, it's generally because we understand the match is executed and put together well and when an angle really moves us it's because we understand that it was put together well and executed well and because they actually didn't screw it up for once, that we care about the people behind the characters getting able to ply their trade in an effective way. I'm not sure those things are mutually exclusive. I know when I really get into a match or an angle, I'm usually not thinking about it on that technical a level. I'm thinking, "Oh shit, that was AWESOME!" And then, a little bit later, I will often think "and this is WHY it was awesome." Sometimes they happen more or less at the same time. As a rule of thumb, the more impressive the moment, the longer the gap seems to be. And of course I can't speak for everybody here, but my point is, yes, suspension of disbelief is a thing for me all the time in wrestling, and understanding of what makes for good wrestling is a thing for me all the time, too. Usually, when there's something going wrong with the former, it's a result of something wrong with the latter, but it still manifests as inability to suspend disbelief. Now, having said that, I see no real reason why that should be a problem here. And the "well Eddie wrestled him" comparison doesn't work for me either. Eddie might have been shorter than Punk but he also was muscular and ripped. Did anyone watch that match and think that Eddie was really any more or less credible of a Lesnar opponent because of his musculature? Can we point to anything in that match that suggested that - on a purely kayfabe level - Eddie's musculature was giving him any kind of meaningful advantages that he wouldn't have had otherwise? It's been a long time since I've watched the match, I admit, but I don't recall Eddie getting the better of - or even just looking competitive with - Lesnar in brawling exchanges. I don't remember him busting out a lot of power spots. In kayfabe, the standards advantages of being muscular are that you hit people hard and throw people around. Eddie didn't do those things, and while you could argue that that's because Lesnar was more muscular and Eddie was just at less of a disadvantage than normal, did that slight evening of the playing field really manifest in any way during the match? Did anything that happened in Eddie's favor in that match happen because Eddie was juiced to the gills? Not that I recall. In fact, if anything, I'm tempted to argue Punk - who isn't especially muscular, but is presented as being in great shape and having excellent cardio - should be able to do all the things that worked for Eddie in that match better than Eddie himself - a guy carrying too much muscle mass for his frame and who eventually died because he was a cardiovascular train wreck. Well, OK, maybe he won't be able to get Goldberg to do a run in for him. Other than that, not sure what Eddie's real advantage over Punk is in this situation. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that Matt is wrong in that suspension of disbelief is still a thing and we shouldn't dismiss it so quickly, but Matt is also right in that if your suspension of disbelief for pro wrestling is being affected in any way by Heath Herring, you my need to step back and remember that wrestling is fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I could almost understand the "I can't buy Punk against Lesnar" argument before the HHH feud. But after HHH feud where Lesnar came out looking like just another guy forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I would also add that if Eddy Guerrero looked more credible against Brock Lesnar, he literally had to sacrifice his life to do it. I'm all for the roles in a wrestling match fitting the size and appearance of the wrestlers, but when I hear talk about not being able to buy someone against someone else, I immediately start thinking about steroids and wrestlers dying young, and this mindset being a large part of why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I do more or less accept S.L.L.'s input as reasonable here and appreciate that I am taking a fairly extreme view. I just don't have much of a gap between those moments. Maybe it's because I don't really watch in a group anymore. Not sure. Most of our discussions here are highly analytical though. I could almost understand the "I can't buy Punk against Lesnar" argument before the HHH feud. But after HHH feud where Lesnar came out looking like just another guy forget it. In fact my only reason to doubt Punk at all in this role is how he was booked in the last few months in his reign, which has nothing to do with his physical appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Staples Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 If Rey can have a credible match against Lesnar, I don't see why Punk can't. Two different wrestlers, yes, but going by size alone there isn't a reason Punk can't look credible against Lesnar. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2berj_br...ws#.UcCjZc5HVOU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I do more or less accept S.L.L.'s input as reasonable here and appreciate that I am taking a fairly extreme view. I just don't have much of a gap between those moments. Maybe it's because I don't really watch in a group anymore. Not sure. Most of our discussions here are highly analytical though. Discussions here are definitely analytical, but they usually incorporate some aspect of "How does this play with Joe Casual Fan?" That's all part of the big-picture analytical discussion. Personally, I have no problem buying Punk having a shot against Lesnar. But I can see how Joe Casual Fan might not buy it, and that aspect should definitely factor into the analytical discussions we have on this board. When my friends used to watch wrestling, many of them didn't think Sting could beat Hogan. Why? Because Hogan was too big. They understood that wrestling was fake and all that, but for whatever reason, Hogan's size advantage stuck in their craws. Trying to figure out why the masses feel what they feel can be maddening, but it doesn't mean their feelings shouldn't factor into a bigger overall analytical discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I don't think that's where goc was coming from though. I certainly think a MMA fan who's come over due to Lesnar would have a problem with it. That's possible. I think it's true with casual fans as well. I think very few of the core WWE viewing audience, young or old, would have a problem with it. Maybe they should throw out more packages of Punk fighting larger guys as part of the hype for this for the people that haven't been following along, or even put him over Clay/Tensai/Khali/etc as a tweener in the lead up to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I could almost understand the "I can't buy Punk against Lesnar" argument before the HHH feud. But after HHH feud where Lesnar came out looking like just another guy forget it. If Lesnar is still a draw, that should have zero bearing on how one looks at a Punk/Lesnar match up. The entire Lesnar aura is based on him being this ridiculously strong and athletic powerhouse from UFC who has the WWE backstory and NFL bit to amplify his star power. If the HHH feud has any impact on him as a draw, the ratings for his appearances and buyrate for summerslam should will show it, and the opponent won't matter if the idea is that he's been castrated. I just don't think that's at all the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 From today's WON update: Daniel Bryan was injured in his match with Randy Orton last night and the finish was essentially a shoot as they stopped a match that Daniel was scheduled to win. The story online that he suffered a stinger is legit. WWE has added the storyline that he went backstage and had a huge argument with HHH about the match being stopped, with him saying he'd worked through plenty of injuries in his career and Hunter took away his biggest-ever win. How about that? Clean win for Bryan would've been awesome there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 Ending sucked at the moment, and you would hope this will put an end to Bryan's headfirst bumps to the floor. But you would think they could work this into his whole weakest link storyline pretty effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I only caught the ending of it, and Orton's body language told me this was a shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chess Knight Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/2013-06-17/da...stage-26124420/ WWE posted this on Bryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 Coming as a guy who LIVED for wrestling magazines as a kid, I can't even imagine what the audience is for them now. The internet pretty much killed my need to buy anything but PWI Almanacs after 1996 so I'm not sure who is still buying them in 2013. Especially at $5 an issue. If I'm looking at that picture correctly that magazine is $9.95......which is completely insane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollinger. Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 I know PWI is $10 an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 Fuck. I was just looking at the website charging $5 per DIGITAL issue and thinking that was way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Yeah, it's $10 bucks. I can't imagine who would still be buying PWI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 RAW this week was apparently written by Vince, Heyman and Dutch Mantell. Keep doing this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Bennett Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 RAW this week was apparently written by Vince, Heyman and Dutch Mantell. Keep doing this! I had an inkling Paul E and Dirty Dutch had joined the creative team! Where did you read this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheGreatPuma Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts