Jump to content

Current state of wrestling


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Taker is among that first tier of all time WWE wrestlers, there is no doubt about it. If I had to rank the most significant guys in the modern history it would be:   Andre The Giant Hulk Hogan "Rowdy"

Katie Vick could not be reached for comment.

Florida

I'm just glad I wasn't there. I felt so bad for the fans in attendace. Felt even worse for the talent. The Bray-Orton match in particular.

 

It's too long of a show with no attention paid to the mid card. If you don't have a strong mid card you lose the audience. The Matt Hardy thing was cool, but it wasn't enough. To keep things going.

 

And yeah. Roman Reigns beat Taker to end the show. They do Brock Goldberg, then do a chick match, and then wheel out Taker for a swan song.

 

Again, I feel bad for the talent (even Roman) because they're just not being booked correctly. It's gotta suck to be a wrestler these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And whoops I posted this thread in the wrong forum. My bad.

 

And I hate to complain about wrestling knowing that's all the Internet does, but damn wwe. What the fuck? You've officially bored your fans to death. At this point Ed Srangler Lewis holding Joe Stecher in a sleeper hold for three hours would be more entertaining than what you're giving us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And yeah. Roman Reigns beat Taker to end the show. They do Brock Goldberg, then do a chick match, and then wheel out Taker for a swan song.

 

Again, I feel bad for the talent (even Roman) because they're just not being booked correctly. It's gotta suck to be a wrestler these days.

 

What's wrong with that? That seems like the usual WWE practice. Resetting the crowd with a low anticipation match right before the main event at Wrestlemania is fairly standard. And I'm not going to argue with 'Taker's retirement closing the show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Five hours is just crazy long, its too long, there is no momentum. The first match didn't even start till 7:21. There is so much fat to trim that the show could be 4 hours and it would still have a ton of fat left they could trim further.

 

It's crazy but the Goldberg-Lesnar match should be their basic template for a match. That match was basically them skipping to the end of a match and not doing the 15-20 minutes that would normally be there before the ending. Other than matches between 2 great in ring performers, that should be the basic match, 10 minutes or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was sooooo long last night. I'm glad I didn't go, because I was offered a couple of Tix at a reasonable price.

 

I only watch every now and then, but I am beginning to see that the problem isn't so much WWE's booking, but the fact that they seem forced to submit to the crowd and what they want. The crowd seems hell bent on saying NO to whatever they want to do with Roman Reigns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit, I'm not really following WWE beyond watching some WhatCulture videos, but if the WWE were all that interested in giving the fans what they want with Roman Reigns, wouldn't they put him in an exploding limo or something instead of having him main event Wrestlemania for the 3rd year in a row and giving him the honors of ending Undertaker's career?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, WWE is high on Reigns. Hence, him main-eventing 3 WMs in a row. No matter what the fans say/do. I like him as well. Undertaker must like him, as well. Since he has the final say on who beats him at WrestleMania. I believe that is still the case....

 

As for Undertaker, this is a sad moment. But, I am thankful that I was around for all of his career. He is the Babe Ruth of wrestling, and to be able to see him wrestle is a special/lucky thing. He will be missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taker is obviously an all time great but he is not the "Babe Ruth" of wrestling. I could think of a few guys who would deserve a title like that over him,

 

It's legit to throw his name in there. How many wrestlers have had as much universal respect backstage, with the bosses, and among the smart crowd? Absolutely none. How many have been as consistently over in front of the fans for as long as the Undertaker? None, and his popularity and anticipation that you're about to see something special when he showed up has grown in the last 15 years as he's aged. The only person who unarguably has more historically significant matches is named Shawn Michaels (partnering with him for three of their greatest).

 

It might be a prisoner of the moment to toss the title around right about now, but give it some time and it won't feel like complete hyperbole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People who have all come and gone from the company while Taker has been loyal since the day he debuted. His gimmick may not have been clean-cut and "safe" enough to have ever been a mainstream babyface, but you'd be hard pressed to find somebody more dedicated to the business than Taker.

Edited by Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fans clearly don't want Reigns as the top guy. I certainly don't. But, building off that dynamite opening segment with him last night (in which he only said five words), if they can write him like a badass cocky heel instead of the second coming of Christ like they've been, they'll have struck gold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying anything against Taker, he is an all time great. I respect him for what he's meant to the company. But Taker is not the Babe Ruth of the company. He was a great, unique performer. He could be a face, a heel, a main eventer, a mid carder. He did whatever they needed him to whenever they needed him to do it. The other 3 are all more important to the company though, especially Austin and Hogan.

 

Hogan is what made the modern WWE possible. If Austin hadn't come around when he did to turn the tide of battle with WCW we may all be getting excited for Starcade in December, rather than Mania. If Austin or Hogan did not exist it's possible that the WWE may not exist now, or at least nothing near its current form. While I suspect that if Taker didn't exist the company would be basically as it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd give it to guys liek Rock, Austin, Hogan. Far more mainstream popular. Those are the big 3 of the WWF.

 

Rock and Austin were relative flashes in the pan though. Austin did his Austin 3:16 promo at King of the Ring 1996 and both were no longer in-ring performers after Wrestlemania 19 in 2004 (or a month later in Rock's case). Austin in particular was severely limited by neck injuries throughout those years. Undertaker's run at the top of the company lasted from the days when Hogan was the face of the company all the way to today.

 

And Hogan... well there's no denying what he did for the WWF back in the day. But there's also no denying that he's quite the polarizing figure and no one is going to claim he was all that good in the actual ring.

 

Like I said, arguments can be made for many men, and not all of them are going to have WWE pedigrees, but Undertaker's full body of work is just something that everyone respects.

 

 

 

While I suspect that if Taker didn't exist the company would be basically as it is now.

 

I don't know. There are a myriad of stories about how 'Taker kept that locker room under control during the dark times in WWF's lifespan. Without him back there and getting the guys in line through respect and/or pure intimidation and being the voice of the locker room to Vince, they may well have not been able to hold things together through the whole Monday Night Wars. That, and he was one of the legit over wrestlers during the dark New Generation era.

 

Without Undertaker in the ring and backstage, yeah, it's very much possible that the company would not have survived as the face of wrestling.

 

 

 

But, building off that dynamite opening segment with him last night (in which he only said five words), if they can write him like a badass cocky heel instead of the second coming of Christ like they've been, they'll have struck gold.

 

It kinda reminds me of how The Rock got his footing after his disastrous introduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Austin's run was short, so was Rocks. But they were so popular. Taker never had popularity like those guys. There were RAWS I went to where Austin got interviewed where the crowd was so loud that you couldn't hear the interview and we had to watch it on tape at home.

 

If you are talking about actual overall performance than the 3 I mentioned wouldn;t be the top 3. If you talk about impact and popularity, those are the 3 without a doubt. It's not even very close. If you want to talk about performance I'd say Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair would be the 2 best ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Austin's run was short, so was Rocks. But they were so popular. Taker never had popularity like those guys. There were RAWS I went to where Austin got interviewed where the crowd was so loud that you couldn't hear the interview and we had to watch it on tape at home.

 

No doubt. Those two put together the two best six years anyone has ever had, and they did it concurrently. I'm not arguing that it's a slam dunk for any of them. And if the Rock had stayed in the business for another half decade instead of wasting his time in Hollywood through most of the 00s before he finally found his calling in Fast Five, there likely wouldn't be any question here. But longevity is a factor. And this guy was the main event at the Wrestlemania where Stone Cold wore his crimson mask and in the main event 20 years later. And had the match of the night in about half a dozen Wrestlemanias in between.

 

Personally, my favorite all-time is Kurt Angle, who was just the total package.

 

Heh, never noticed it before, but the Rock/Austin years were literally during Wrestlemania's teen years, 13-19. How appropriate.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about performance I'd say Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair would be the 2 best ever.

 

Personally, if you gave me a list of Top 10 Flair matches and Top 10 Undertaker matches, I'd go with Undertaker. He's easily the best big man the industry's ever seen (with due respect to Andre) and the storytelling of his top matches is a lot more varied and interesting to watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its different, they allow different things now. Hard to compare a match from the last few years to Flair's heyday. Its almost like saying that some NCAA runner today is a greater sprinter than Jessie Owens because his time in the 100 is faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion, and I am sticking with it.

 

There is no greater entrance in all of wrestling than Undertaker's. You hear that gong, and all in attendance stand up/cheer/go crazy/get chills/get intimidated/whatever. It is the best. Period. Demon King Balor is pretty high up there, too, but ...... GONG....

 

Not the only reason, either. 1991 - 2017. 25+ years. Pretty much all dominant. His knee(s) let him down recently, but pretty much all of those years, he was awesome/dominant. So many great feuds, so many great matches.

 

Well respected in the back, too. Everybody looked up to him. Everybody. Never got in trouble with the company, as far as I know, and I have never read a story of him having a problem with, or hating, any fellow wrestler. Except for the ones that deserved to be scolded.

 

He was incredible. Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is plenty of talent on the WWE roster and this could have been an awesome show. From my perspective, there were three main issues.

 

First, the length of the matches. Looking back at older WMs, most matches were less than 10 minutes. They rarely went longer unless both the two performers could put on a show. WM17 had 12 matches. Over half were less than 10 minutes and only Austin V Rock went over 20. Benoit v Angle only went 14 minutes. Compare that to WM 33. Of the 12 matches on the card, only 3 matches were less than 10 and 3 went over 20 minutes.

 

Second, there weren't any surprise losses in their marquee matches. Everyone won that was supposed to win.

 

Finally, the main event was a dud. Everyone knows Taker is old and can no longer carry a match. With no DQ, Roman could have lost and looked strong: knock the ref out, run interference, something...anything, and don't do it for 26 minutes. Undertaker v HBK 1 was only 3 minutes longer and the rematch was 23.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying Undertaker isn't an all time great, but when you call someone the Babe Ruth of something you are saying they are the greatest ever. Taker, I don't think, you could say he was the greatest professional wrestler ever. Saying someone isn't the #1 best ever isn't a knock on that guy.

 

My reasoning is this, you can't be the best ever if you were never the best at any one time. When was Undertaker the most important, top guy in WWF? I realize he was in main events but was there ever a time where for any length of time he was the most important, biggest star on the roster? I don't think so.

 

When he first signed it was obviously Hogan's show. Then even during the bridge between Hogan and the Attitude Era he was never the biggest star. That was Brett Hart, 5 time Champion. Even a guy like Diesel was, at the time, a bigger star having held the belt for nearly a full year. I mean he fought Giant Gonzalez in WM IX and King Kong Bundy at XI, having missed X. These are not matches given to the very top guys on a roster.

 

Ofcourse at WM 13 he fought Sid in the main event for the title. But this was at the absolute nadir of WWF's lack of talent. They had lost a ton of guys to WCW and their real best guy at the time, HBK was off either hurt or finding is smile or whatever he was doing. The other top guys where Hart and Austin who fought each other in a match that was the most anticipated on the card even if it was not the actual main event.

 

Then the Attitude Era started and Taker was a very important part of this. Wouldn't take that away from him. But he was never the main guy during this period. That was Austin, followed by the Rock. Then you had Taker, dX and Foley also hugely important. BUt he was never the top guy.

 

Next we came to the post Attitude Era, which was probably Takers greatest era eventhough it was late in his career. He won back to back main event titles at Mania against Batista and Edge. Then followed that up with 4 classic Mania matches against HBK and HHH. This was probably in alot of ways the peak of his career. But still, any reasonable fan would have to say that the biggest star in the company at the time was Jon Cena.

 

Again, none of this is to take away from Undertaker, an all time great. A career that may be unique in pro wrestling history. He was a perfect jack of all trades throughout his career. Lacking upper card talent, throw him in the main event. Want to get someone over, let them look good in defeat against the Taker. Want something a bit different from most of the card, have him face Kane.

 

I just can't get behind calling him the best ever, not in terms of his actual performance or in terms of popularity. Certainly an all time great, he'd be a HOFer even if the WWE had a real HOF that mattered. But he's not the best wrestler ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...