Guest Famous Mortimer Posted December 6, 2005 Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 Okay, Rudo...I don't think ROH is trying to be AJPW. You may want that to be the case, but I don't remember AJPW doing four-ways (at least in the 90s glory days), having female managers, having managers at all, having comedy matches, and so on and so forth. I'm working my way slowly up through time, and am now on the third anniversary shows, and I'm really enjoying it in a way I haven't really enjoyed any pro wrestling in ages. It's because it's good. Maff and Whitmer have just won the tag belts from Romero and Reyes, and finally gotten their revenge on manager Alison Danger, and had an emotional time doing it (and got a great pop from the crowd, I notice), and it's still only half-way through show 1. Not an amazing match, but fun to watch and with an emotional content. I've got a 10-DVD best of 1990s AJPW set, and it's got a lot of the best matches of all time on it. No doubt. And I love UWFi, Pancrase, Pride, UFC and Shooto too. Watching Takada and Maeda develop and form their own feds with their own styles is a great time to be a wrestling fan. But everything else you listed is MMA, and you're just not comparing like with like. MMA is a real sport, with proper rules and disciplines, and pro wrestling is entertainment. If you're in it for the realism, which you claim, then any pro wrestling is not for you, and your criticism of ROH is less valid because you're biased against pro wrestling as a whole. And you talk about WM18...it's an amazing match, but realistic it most definitely is not. They're a fed who can't afford much in the way of talent and are stuck in an indie ghetto, needing weekly TV to build storylines and attendances but not with the structure or contracts with talent to be abe to pull this off. Read "Turning the Tables" by John Lister on the subject of ECW to know that going in that direction can be very, very dangerous for a small business. So they do what they do, hire as much talent as they can and are forced to have shows in front of fans who for the most part are assholes- seemingly annoyed that they had the wool pulled from over their eyes about pro wrestling being fake. I hate chanting and all that crap but I can differentiate between the product itself and its fans. A hot crowd helps a hell of a lot, but you don't need it and the crowd at ROH events have been responding in the matches I've seen like you'd want a pro wrestling crowd to react, for the most part at least. Their best matches are the best things happening in the US - if you don't like Joe and Punk's series, and the backstory behind it, then like someone else said I can't understand why you're a wrestling fan. It had great emotion, great storytelling, and more importantly great work. Not as good as my all-time favourite AJPW matches, but so what? They're pretty brilliant, and they're happening now, and I've already seen all the AJPW I want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted December 6, 2005 Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 Okay, Rudo...I don't think ROH is trying to be AJPW. You may want that to be the case, but I don't remember AJPW doing four-ways (at least in the 90s glory days), having female managers, having managers at all, having comedy matches, and so on and so forth. I'm working my way slowly up through time, and am now on the third anniversary shows, and I'm really enjoying it in a way I haven't really enjoyed any pro wrestling in ages. It's because it's good. Maff and Whitmer have just won the tag belts from Romero and Reyes, and finally gotten their revenge on manager Alison Danger, and had an emotional time doing it (and got a great pop from the crowd, I notice), and it's still only half-way through show 1. Not an amazing match, but fun to watch and with an emotional content. I've got a 10-DVD best of 1990s AJPW set, and it's got a lot of the best matches of all time on it. No doubt. And I love UWFi, Pancrase, Pride, UFC and Shooto too. Watching Takada and Maeda develop and form their own feds with their own styles is a great time to be a wrestling fan. But everything else you listed is MMA, and you're just not comparing like with like. MMA is a real sport, with proper rules and disciplines, and pro wrestling is entertainment. If you're in it for the realism, which you claim, then any pro wrestling is not for you, and your criticism of ROH is less valid because you're biased against pro wrestling as a whole. And you talk about WM18...it's an amazing match, but realistic it most definitely is not. They're a fed who can't afford much in the way of talent and are stuck in an indie ghetto, needing weekly TV to build storylines and attendances but not with the structure or contracts with talent to be abe to pull this off. Read "Turning the Tables" by John Lister on the subject of ECW to know that going in that direction can be very, very dangerous for a small business. So they do what they do, hire as much talent as they can and are forced to have shows in front of fans who for the most part are assholes- seemingly annoyed that they had the wool pulled from over their eyes about pro wrestling being fake. I hate chanting and all that crap but I can differentiate between the product itself and its fans. A hot crowd helps a hell of a lot, but you don't need it and the crowd at ROH events have been responding in the matches I've seen like you'd want a pro wrestling crowd to react, for the most part at least. Their best matches are the best things happening in the US - if you don't like Joe and Punk's series, and the backstory behind it, then like someone else said I can't understand why you're a wrestling fan. It had great emotion, great storytelling, and more importantly great work. Not as good as my all-time favourite AJPW matches, but so what? They're pretty brilliant, and they're happening now, and I've already seen all the AJPW I want to. AJPW had comedy stuff. Just saying. Please someone explain to me why people like Joe vs Punk. I watched the best of the series, the second match and to be honest hated it. I couldn't wait untill it was over. There wasn't one thing I found compelling in it at all. Nothing. Where's all this great storytelling, great work and emotion coming from? Now I realise they must be doing something right to make people like their matches but I just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 6, 2005 Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 With Joe-Punk, watch all three matches in succession. It makes the 2nd one that much better. Also, where the hell do you guys get off syaing there is no emotion in the match? Who isn't showing any emoton? The Wrestlers? The fans? yourself? If it is you who are not connecting to the wrestlers then so be it but if you don't think there is any emotion in the crowd or the wrestlers themselves, you are blind. Anyway, in the first match, Punk threw out all he could and kept getting blasted by Joe's big move counters yet somehow was able to go the distance with him. Still, the work dragged in some places and was spotty as hell in others. Still a good match for the time involved. In the 2nd one, he works the headlock and actually gets the headlock over as a meaningful move in the year 2004 in an attempt to wear down Joe so he can actually connect with his big spots thinking that will put Joe down while not allowing Joe to hit his impact moves. So, in this match, you have Joe getting countered and when he finally hits his big moves, he takes over until Punk is able to ground him again. Then you hit your stretch run where Punk tries to put Joe down knowing he is in a race against the clock. In the 3rd and final match, Punk gets busted open early and it is a war of attrition as Joe sees blood and capitalizes and Punk triesto defy the odds but ultimately realize that it is a futile effort as Joe just destroys Punk. Pretty effective storytelling to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted December 6, 2005 Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 Now I realise they must be doing something right to make people like their matches but I just don't get it. A lot of people are mistaken into believing that length equal quality. I'm not saying that here because I liked the 2nd match. It wasn't a winning forumla for me though because I find my enjoyment starts to decrease around the 45 minute mark unless it's a really good match. But I see a lot of "it was 60 minutes so it had to be good" type of statements attached to those types of matches. I think a lot of times someone is trying to justify how long they sat through something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Famous Mortimer Posted December 6, 2005 Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 Now I realise they must be doing something right to make people like their matches but I just don't get it. A lot of people are mistaken into believing that length equal quality. I'm not saying that here because I liked the 2nd match. It wasn't a winning forumla for me though because I find my enjoyment starts to decrease around the 45 minute mark unless it's a really good match. But I see a lot of "it was 60 minutes so it had to be good" type of statements attached to those types of matches. I think a lot of times someone is trying to justify how long they sat through something. Was there a 90 minute Chris Hero match once? That fact gives the lie to your statement, I don't need to see Chris Hero work a ten minute match, and 90 minutes would make me want to die. Angelina Jolie promising to fuck me senseless as soon as I'd finished watching it would not be enough. But sometimes, long matches can be very good, just like some short ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted December 6, 2005 Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 Eh, let's not overcomplicate things. The story in Joe-Punk II is very simple: CM Punk, underdog and hometown babyface, takes on Samoa Joe, dominant and respected champion, and comes close to winning. That's it. You don't need to watch a dozen prior matches to decode the secrets. Despite all the praise it gets from smarky/elitist-types, it's really not a smarky/elitist match. I was marking out like crazy for Punk's comebacks and nearfalls. He puts a ton of heart and desire into his performance. I'm not much of a fan of long matches, so it takes a lot to get me to love one. I loved this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 There's probably truth there. The hometown kid challenging the bulletproof champ is a story as old as wrestling itself, as Dave Meltzer said in his review of the match. And I still need to watch that damn rematch. Tonight ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Eh, let's not overcomplicate things. The story in Joe-Punk II is very simple: CM Punk, underdog and hometown babyface, takes on Samoa Joe, dominant and respected champion, and comes close to winning. That's it. You don't need to watch a dozen prior matches to decode the secrets. Despite all the praise it gets from smarky/elitist-types, it's really not a smarky/elitist match. I was marking out like crazy for Punk's comebacks and nearfalls. He puts a ton of heart and desire into his performance. I'm not much of a fan of long matches, so it takes a lot to get me to love one. I loved this one. I do not disagree with that statement except that tyour description deals more with what is going on outside the ring and mine deals with what is going on inside. There isn't anything too complicated about my paragraph that describes 3 matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 That is going on inside the ring, though. That's the story the match is communicating to the viewers, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 No, if you don't hear the announcers talk about Punk being from Chicago, mentioning that the match is in Chicago and then put "respected and dominant champion" into words then you would never know based on the actions in the ring. You would only know that the skinny white guy its trying to take down the bigger fat guy. If you want to put my description into play along with Kawada's then that would be more reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 No, if you don't hear the announcers talk about Punk being from Chicago, mentioning that the match is in Chicago and then put "respected and dominant champion" into words then you would never know based on the actions in the ring. You would only know that the skinny white guy its trying to take down the bigger fat guy. If you want to put my description into play along with Kawada's then that would be more reasonable. If you can't even tell who the face is and the heel is, or at least who the underdog is and who the champ is, from the actions in the ring, then you're typically not watching a very good match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Where did I say you couldn't tell who the babyface or underdog was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 You said none of that has anything to do with what's going on in the ring and that you wouldn't know it without the announcers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 No, I didn't. I was talking about Punk being the hometown hero. There is no way you could know that was part of the story unless you heard commentary or knew where Punk was from. Ultimately, the story in the ring (the headlocks, the comebacks, etc,) are what makes the match. Plus, the fact that he is a hometown hero may be a proven formula but it doesn't guarantee the match will be good. Kurt Angle always gets a monstrous response in Pittsburgh but that doesn't always translate to a good match in the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 No, I didn't. I was talking about Punk being the hometown hero. There is no way you could know that was part of the story unless you heard commentary or knew where Punk was from.What in the world is your point? Plus, the fact that he is a hometown hero may be a proven formula but it doesn't guarantee the match will be good.Who said it would? Someone wanted to know the story. I explained it. The story is Punk - underdog and hometown babyface vs Joe - dominant champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 What in the world is your point? If you read closely you would know that Loss claimed I made a statement that I did not make. I was elaborating on a previous point while clearing up any confusion between me and Loss. It had nothing to do with you or your statements. I even agreed with your point if you read the thread. Who said it would? Someone wanted to know the story. I explained it. The story is Punk - underdog and hometown babyface vs Joe - dominant champion. Once again, read the thread... Loss stated... If you can't even tell who the face is and the heel is, or at least who the underdog is and who the champ is, from the actions in the ring, then you're typically not watching a very good match. Once again, referring to loss, not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 You have my apology, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts