Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
Sign in to follow this  
goodhelmet

All Elite Wrestling

Recommended Posts

Size is for sure an issue. But that's not exclusive to Joey Ryan nowadays. Even in WWE, the previous Land of the Giants, the majority of their roster are pretty small people. 

The bigger issue for Joey Ryan to me is what does he bring to the table that you can't get from someone else that wouldn't also have the added bonus of not bringing the circus & drama with it? Like, why would you bring in Joey Ryan would you could get, say, Marty Scurll? And it's not like I'm a big Marty fan but you're not going to get the dog & pony show with him.

In that regard, I kind of think the Adam Cole comparison is apt. Who wouldn't take Cole over Ryan from a promoter standpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually glad he didn't sign with AEW. I don't hate the dick spot and there has been some creative uses of it. But he can't do that with a promotion with weekly TV and the audience is going to want it. So he's really in a situation he can't win with if he went to AEW.

Honestly, Adam Cole kind of sucks too but I would probably take him over Joey Ryan. I think Joey Ryan at his best is a special attraction you bring to your Con so people can take goofy pictures with him. Then he works your show and does something silly with a legend like the battle with Socko or Jerry Lawler fireballing him in the dick. Shit like that's funny and gets memed up. So Joey Ryan serves a purpose popping up 3 or 4 times a year or at big shows with a Con attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having never seen Sonny Kiss before Double or Nothing, I too would have classed him as a transvestite. He's wrestling in woman attire with makeup. That is the definition of a transvestite, as I understand it.

But that's growing up in Britain, watching people like Eddie Lizard Who do identifies themselves as transvestite/transgender. He doesn't always fully dress as a woman but will wear make up and wear nail polish. 

I never put a negative connotation on the word before, I know some people use it in a negative way, like a homophobic would with the word gay. But I put that down to the person using the word and not the word itself. Its just a word to describe someone who cross dresses 

Now I know its classed in todays society in a negative connotation, I wouldn't refer to someone who cross dresses as a transvestite. Not that I ever did use it in the first place, would have used cross dresser (is cross dressing the correct term?)

Or androgynous for Sonny Kiss, I'm thinking? 

I found this quote from Sonny Kiss online

I’m just a guy who is feminine, obviously, it’s very apparent. But at the same time, I’m just a wrestler and I’m not a ‘gimmick.’ I’m just this flamboyant, athletic, flipping dude…dude or dudette, however you see it because I’m very ambiguous with my sexuality and gender. I call myself a male but I identify as gender-neutral to the public."

Still not sure how he identifies himself, but guessing the idea is to not have labels and just be accepted for who he is.

I'm a 43 Straight guy, who regularly to gay bars/clubs with my gay friends on nights out, as gay bars usually have a more relaxed atmosphere. Have been there when two friends who started their journey in to transgender one female and one was male. But I still can't keep up with all the different names people have/come up with to describe their gender/sexuality. 

I've had conversations with gay men and women on nights out and they find all the different verbiage in the LGBT community hard to keep up with. "you bisexual, no I'm pansexual 

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality, is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity. Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.

Pansexual Still sounds bisexual to me, just in a more pretentious way of saying it. But if it makes someone happy to have there own word to describe themselves then I would call them pansexual. 

How do you expect Jim Cornette to know if he's using the right terminology to describe someone. shouldn't it just be a case of "please can you not use that word because it offends me for these reasons." Then judge him if he ignores those reasons and carry on using the word. 

Doubt he has much contact with the LGBTQ+ community  

Maybe the commentators should of done a better job of explaining how Sonny identifies himself and informed the audience. As I'm guessing for a large percent of them would have viewed Sonny as a transvestite and would need to be educated on how he views himself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47691888

This is a good interview on this type of issue,

It does make me laugh when people online quickly judge someone for thier actions, they end up sounding just as bigoted as the person they are attacking.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the above post to be really interesting and the reason why old boards > Twitter (150 words, you can't say shit). Can't agree with the last sentence more.

(I find all this verbiage to be silly as fuck BTW. It's like people absolutely want put themselves in little boxes, like society didn't do that already. There's absolutely a form of narcissism going on today with the focus on "identity", whatever it may be (sexual preference, gender, religion, color of skin, etc.), which goes along the rise of social networks which make people desperate for validation. The "look at me and tell me I'm great" generation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ragemaster said:

Maybe the commentators should of done a better job of explaining how Sonny identifies himself and informed the audience.

Jim Cornette's entire rant during that part of the podcast was pretty much about how the pre-show is supposed to sell the viewers on the show & they were marching person after person out there that no one knew & they didn't tell us shit about any of them. Which was why Cornette was describing Sonny in the first place. So if you're unfamiliar with him, or any other wrestler, and you have to describe them - because the commentators aren't - what do you come up with? That's all he was doing. Same with Sunny Daze, Luchasaurus, & the other people he wasn't familiar with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So one thing I think everyone can agree on is AEW absolutely needs to devote some time to introduce characters once they get on TNT. They don't want to fall in the trap of thinking everyone watching knows who these people are, as while it may be true for All In or Double or Nothing type shows, a larger TV audience will need a primer on who folks are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, El-P said:

The "look at me and tell me I'm great" generation.

There are a lot of social, economic, political, technological, and cultural factors driving this that I think have almost nothing to do with the people themselves, and this is one of the rare times I wish we weren't Pro Wrestling Only, so I could expand on that a little. But we are, so I won't, except to say that I don't look at it as a moral failing or a character defect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ragemaster. You eloquently and sensitively said what I attempted to say in a far less sensitive and far less eloquent manner. I thank you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

There are a lot of social, economic, political, technological, and cultural factors driving this that I think have almost nothing to do with the people themselves, and this is one of the rare times I wish we weren't Pro Wrestling Only, so I could expand on that a little. But we are, so I won't, except to say that I don't look at it as a moral failing or a character defect.

Oh, this is a broad issue for sure. Still, there is an issue with how social networks work and what they do to people's mind. There's also something linked with how über-capitalism is pushing "personal branding" and tries (successfully, which is god-awful) to Uber-size the entire society. Me, "I'd rather not".

Back to topic, hopefully the promotion doesn't introduce a hundred belts. That's something that is annoying even in the best environment like NJ, where they have way too many titles. World Title. World Women's Title. Tag Title. A Secondary single men's belt. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More great publicity for AEW:

From 2020 U.S. Presidential Candidate, Democrat Andrew Yang...

With WWE being in bed with the Republican party, I wonder if the rosters between the two feds will end up being split among similar party lines. I doubt it, but it's interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a stupid comment that makes little sense. He's a politican backed by a trust fund kid? Someone who doesn't care about balancing a budget?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the fact AEW is something a politician feels they can score points with is kind of amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the AOC tweet get traction here? That seemed like a huge deal. I was flabbergasted she tweeted about AEW. The Trump/McMahon friendship seems like such small potatoes, but Linda was in the Cabinet for a good chunk. So maybe the Democrats see this as a small way to stick to Trump's boy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Khan being dismissed as a "trust fund kid" is really lazy criticism IMO.

He owns or co-owns two major sports teams.

And he's a lifelong passionate fan of pro wrestling.

Guess what: that's what you need to succeed in a wrestling landscape dominated by WWE - wrestling knowledge and money. Khan has both.

So, what's the problem? This is clearly not a Dixie Carter situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think it's part wrestling having a history full of money marks getting conned, and part WWE revisionism that anyone who has the money to run against them must be flawed somehow. 

Plus the WWE ride-or-die crew has to have something to hold on to. Their first two shows were both well received, they got a major TV deal, they got a top level WWE guy to come on board. The only thing they have left is the idea they're being run by a dumb money mark.  I saw Tony being interviewed after Double or Nothing where he was geeking out over the show in a way that wouldn't have been out of place as a post on a board like this, dude's a fan but he clearly seems to know his shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, C.S. said:

Tony Khan being dismissed as a "trust fund kid" is really lazy criticism IMO.

He owns or co-owns two major sports teams.

He seems like a smart guy, and AEW's early business moves seem to be pretty good, but his billionaire father owns those teams. And it's not like either of those teams are setting the world on fire.

Edited by ...TG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ...TG said:

He seems like a smart guy, and AEW's early business moves seem to be pretty good, but his billionaire father owns those teams. And it's not like either of those teams are setting the world on fire.

I am not a sports guy, so I don't know how the teams are doing.

I am sad that Blake Bortles is no longer with the Jacksonville Jaguars, simply because of the running joke on The Good Place. I am hoping for some good AEW jokes in future seasons. (There have been many great wrestling references already.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously comparing football to wrestling is like comparing apples to oranges, but Tony Khan's stewardship of Fulham is not the example to be looking at. They were a freshly promoted, promising team when he decided to become more 'hands-on'. In the following 12 months they spent £100m on transfers, went through three managers in a season, were comfortably relegated with a month left of the season and Fulham fans dislike him so much that he was trolled into an embarrassing public tantrum on Twitter over a clearly photoshopped flag proclaiming "Tony Khan wanks dogs". Not saying this will have any bearing on his running of AEW, and he seems to be hiring wisely with experienced heads, but I would be loathe to use "runs a large-ish football team" as proof of his acumen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because your father is rich and you've had advantages in life to give you a leg up, whether you asked for them or not, doesn't then mean that you can't have a hard work ethic, mental acumen or talent to achieve in the field you've chosen to go into.

As NotJayTabb outlines, his direct involvement in Fulham over the last year or so has been dismal - whether he was making all the day-to-day decisions or not, it's come on his watch - however I agree with sek69's point that criticism of him just being a fool parting with his money comes very much from the Monday Night War narrative of an evil billionaire media mogul trying to destroy an honest family business by throwing money around.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TonyPulis'Cap said:

however I agree with sek69's point that criticism of him just being a fool parting with his money comes very much from the Monday Night War narrative of an evil billionaire media mogul trying to destroy an honest family business by throwing money around.      

Also because pro wrestling has a very long history of carnies soaking a rich fan who wants to be involved in the business. Like I said above, his early results seem very positive, but it's certainly fair to be skeptical - I'm sure every money mark in the last 25 years or so has subscribed to the Observer for years and could be described as a passionate fan, just like Khan has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ...TG said:

Also because pro wrestling has a very long history of carnies soaking a rich fan who wants to be involved in the business. Like I said above, his early results seem very positive, but it's certainly fair to be skeptical - I'm sure every money mark in the last 25 years or so has subscribed to the Observer for years and could be described as a passionate fan, just like Khan has.

Is that true? I don't recall people talking about Dixie Carter's years of reading the dirt sheets and flying up to the ECW Arena. Even Billy Corgan never expressed the depth of knowledge I've seen from Khan. Skepticism is always fair in a new venture, but Khan seems like a deep level nerd in a way that does seem unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Migs said:

Is that true? I don't recall people talking about Dixie Carter's years of reading the dirt sheets and flying up to the ECW Arena. 

Dixie knew Vince Russo was responsible for the last boom of pro-wrestling, so there's that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, El-P said:

Dixie knew Vince Russo was responsible for the last boom of pro-wrestling, so there's that...

She was also surrounded by people who would tell her that too. 

Dixie always came off to me as a casual fan, maybe a little more. She clearly was into it, but never struck me as a hardcore fan.  Tony on the other hand, if you told me he posts on boards like this I wouldn't be surprised. Also bringing in people like Chris Harrington to run numbers and help with the business is pretty non-money mark kind of move to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×