This is a discussion on Your wrestling ideologys... within the General Pro Wrestling : Classic & General forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; Hated is a little strong, admittedly, but I certainly didn't think it was 5 stars. I think ***1/2 did does ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
The ending was okay, like you said, just a little too predictable and underwhelming. Pace was great, psycology was great, it was important but I don't feel like I saw a hybrid of styles in the match. It was okay, but eh, just wasn't for me.
For me, wrestling is best when it's presented as an actual sport, and dosen't insult the intelligence of it's audience or the performers with cartoon characters & comedy skits, the idea to me is that it's supposed to be taken seriously, so wrestling should be planely that; wrestling, what does it matter if it's predetermined or not? It's not fake. Wrestling was great in the 60s & 70s for a reason; it promoted wrestling.
I'm talking about the in ring aspect here, give the people something they can appreciate, when you get hit with a weapon, you go to the hospital, don't you? Why would people develop personal rivalries on telly for 2 hours every week, any upright adult would settle it in private. People don't have to dislike eachother just because their challenging one another in a physical struggle, that's part of the sport/what they're getting paid for.
EDIT: What i'm basically trying to say is; the idea is to pin your opponents shoulders to the mat for 3 seconds or make them submit. THAT'S ALL!
I'm talking about the in ring aspect here, give the people something they can appreciate, when you get hit with a weapon, you go to the hospital, don't you? Why would people develop personal rivalries on telly for 2 hours every week, any upright adult would settle it in private. People don't have to dislike eachother just because their challenging one another in a physical struggle, that's part of the sport/what they're getting paid for.
This is more an issue with kayfabe than what the thread was intended about, but this is perfectly explainable in kayfabe.
If a guy attacks you, you will want to attack him back. If you attack him at home or whereever, it's illegal and he can call the police on you. Wrestlers, in kayfabe and reality, would have permission to beat the hell out of their opponent in the confines of a wrestling match.
I think personal hate, disrespect, struggle, dissention adds a lot to the match.
And I'm sure the 60's and 70's had plenty of comedy/novelty wrestlers too.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Emotions may add intensity to a match, but where's the real life rivalry in football or tennis?
Also, I forgot to say I think matches should go on for atleast long enough to paint a picture in the ring (not literally) I think wrestlers aswell as promoters are partly to blame, because they don't want to be out there as long, but what can you do in 5 or 10 minutes, a good match needs time to develop IMO, atleast say 20 mins.
Lmao comparing TENNIS a non violent sport to fucking wrestling. You're fighting somebody. Obviously their will be feuds. I mean hell, you see feuds in boxing and MMA don't you? They may not be as ridiculous because they're... real... but you still see people feuding. Just like teams feud. Just like their's jealousy. Wrestling takes real stuff and makes it fit into the wrestling business in often times ridiculous manners, however it's not as ridiculous of a concept as you're trying to make it sound.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Emotions may add intensity to a match, but where's the real life rivalry in football or tennis?
Also, I forgot to say I think matches should go on for atleast long enough to paint a picture in the ring (not literally) I think wrestlers aswell as promoters are partly to blame, because they don't want to be out there as long, but what can you do in 5 or 10 minutes, a good match needs time to develop IMO, atleast say 20 mins.
Comparing non-contact sports to wrestling is realy odd. There is plenty of tension amongst competitors in boxing, MMA, etc.
Match length really depends on the wrestles and the situation. Some wrestlers are better suited to shorter matches. You can tell a great story in the ring in a ten minutes or so.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There's many, many aspects to a great wrestling match (execution, intensity, storyline, realism, etc...) however the one thing I need to really get behind a match is logic.
Logic.
Yes TNA, LOGIC.
If a guy has his leg worked on for ten minutes and then doesn't sell it in his comeback, that's not logically.
If a guy's friend says he has his back, and then he comes out a costs him the title, and that is never explained, that's not logically.
If a guy has a world title and his opponent steals it, and he doesn't try and get it back, that isn't logically.
True. Two of those three aren't even to do with the matces themselves, but my feeling is the same. If a match is devoid of logic, I just can't connect with it at all. I'm big on my logic. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
__________________
You mess with Piper, you'll end up either bald or dead.
Angle is intense, but he has so many other flaws. He's pretty much exhausted his finishers to the point where a kickout from the Angle Slam or an escape from the Ankle Lock is neither shocking nor meaningful. I would say part of being a good wrestler is being able to protect and build up your finishing moves. That is why Taker/HBK worked and and why I would consider Undertaker to be one of the best guys going today - he has an array of finishers that are not only entirely credible (outside of maybe the Gogoplatza) but he has also done a great job of protecting them and keeping them over.
Angle also isn't a smart worker by any means. He wrestles every match the same.... suplex x 100, followed by finisher kickouts and an ankle lock finish. Not only does that make no sense as working the neck with suplexes is terrible in context with having a leg-focused finish, but it's the same thing over and over. Part of being a good wrestler is being versatile and being able to adapt. I would say that is something that seperates the good wrestlers from the great. I mentioned it in the Ki and Danielson threads that they are examples of guys who can work a match around their opponent. Angle does not do that.
Angle does do that. Look at his matches with Kane, with Taker, with Michaels, with Cena, and the list goes on and on...
Angle is a very smart worker. It's not just suplex, suplex, ankle lock. He throws in a lot of ameteur moves, and makes them look credible in addition to his pro-wrestling moves. He throws a lot of suplexes because he's billed as a suplex machine much like Taz was, and much like the Steiner Brothers were. If his finishers don't look all that threatening to you, you can't blame that on Angle; that's the fault of those booking his matches, and the wrestlers who don't want to lose via a submission on the first attempt if they'll accept losing via a submission at all.
A lot of the 'faults' about Kurt Angle you can say the exact same thing about Benoit: chop, snap suplex, repeat German Suplex, top-rope headbutt, Crippler Crossface. Throw in a Sharpshooter if the match goes past 15 mins. Does working the neck with suplexes make sense with an arm based finisher like the Crossface, and/or a leg-based Sharpshooter he ever rarely saw victories with?
Angle is excellent wrestler, and a great storyteller. Just because he gets a ton of praise from the IWC doesn't mean that it's all unwarranted.
Linear Mode
