oh, and if i hear one more person who has NEVER BEEN A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER FOR WWE OR WCW talk about 'drawing', im gonna flip out
just a warning.....this is a long-winded and opinion-oriented post. however, it is a serious question, but im sure im going to get hate for it, so thats just a warning. my favorite replies are ones saying how 'boring' posts were.... well.... this ones long, so just dont read it if youre that type of guy (or girl).
maybe this should go in the venting section, but it is a serious question that ive had for a few years now, mostly based off the annoying, pompous marks who write the columns and news articles that i read to stay abreast of whats happening behind the scenes in the wrestling world.
so i started watching wrestling as a kid back around late 92/93 and pretty much ate it up and loved everyone and everything about it. looking back, there were guys i liked who were, by anyones opinion, bad wrestlers. my 2nd favorite wrestler was the giant gonzalez. what can i say? i was like 6 years old and the dude was a complete monster, nothing like anything i'd ever seen. now, i realize his wrestling ability was non-existant, but back then i couldnt get enough just based on his look/heel persona (loved heels since day 1).
on the flipside, there seem to be guys that no one denies as being legendary. my #1 favorite wrestler since day 1 was hbk (although, post-hiatus hbk wasnt as entertaining), who seemed to have it all (look, charisma, in ring ability).
basically, i like whoever entertains me, but it seems like these days, the 'good' wrestlers are the short, small, cookie-cutter guys with short hair that can move around, while the big, dominant guys are the 'bad' wrestlers. what does it take to be considered 'good'? to me, it SURE AS HELL doesnt mean entertaining to watch perform or very entertaining with regard to their character/angles.
obviously big guys like khali and big show suck bc they literally walk out, punch some people, then either win or lose the match by doing a terrible move (although show was really that bad back in the 90's, but hes way too fat now to move around much). but why the hate for guys like ryback and mason ryan? as ive said in another thread, at least they do more than just punch and kick and make it look like what theyre doing is actually painful and that theyre actually beating the crap out of the other guy.
now it seems that smaller guys are the only ones that are considered good. i just dont see it. obviously one can make up for lacking size by excelling at putting on an entertaining match (see hbk), but what defines 'entertaining' these days? i think of it as being on the edge of your seat the whole time, and actually having an interest in who wins (last match that really did that for me was brock v. cena or hhh v. undertaer HIAC). whats so great about daniel bryan? sure, his catch phrase is catchy, but why does everyone mark out over him? his matches are ok, i guess, but hes just a technical wrestler. not a power wrestler, not a high flyer. same with christian, rhodes, miz, adr, orton, sheamus (well, i guess hes a 'power' guy, but his moves suck), swagger, ziggler (although hes got a great look and i LOVE the way he sells, so i enjoy his matches), sandow, santino, etc, etc, etc, etc.
whats so special about guys like bryan, miz, christian, etc? their matches ARENT exciting to the casual fan (ill get to that later), their looks arent that great, and at best, theyve got somewhat entertaining mic skills.
ive heard SOOO many people talk about how much triple h sucks and only got to where he is based off his influence. WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? triple h was entertaining as hell in the late 90's and still is today. he was an INCREDIBLE heel in the late 90's/early 00's and had people truly HATE him, and he could always bring the house down in an entertaining match where he just goes all out as the 'ruthless, cerebral assassin' (although, admittedly, it was often times as result of guys like foley allowing him to beat the ever living shit out of them).
people tout christian as 'the best wrestler in wwe'. why? he's skinny, has a boring move set, isnt extraoridinary on the mic, doesnt have the ability to get people TRULY interested in his character or direction.... hes just a midcarder... same with bryan.
everyone wants to get bent out of shape about kevin nash's comments, but in a way theyre true. almost every single person im friends with was a wrestling fan growing up during the 90's/very early 2000's. you know how many still are besides me? 2.... and you know how many find the current product truly interesting in more than just 1 angle or 2? ZERO. why do current episodes of raw do a fraction of what they used to when now they have 'real wrestlers' and not a bunch of 'roid heads' and 'hardcore idiots'?
every time i try to get my friends who USED to watch to watch again, they just ask 'who are these skinny, boring guys? this sucks'. not saying youve gotta be huge to be entertaining, but why is it that so many people would opt out of watching cm punk v. daniel bryan live to 'watch your old dvd with test v. shane mcmahon' or something? neither test, nor shane, would be considered 'good wrestlers' by today's fan's standards, would they?
i remember saying the best 'pure wrestling' match ever was RVD v. jerry lynn at LD '99. now people scoff at that, and if its not ROH or something, they dont wanna hear it. why do the 'casual' fans say that mick foley getting thrown off HIAC is more entertaining to watch than whatever your 2 favorite current wwe wrestlers are?
so what makes a good wrestler? i always thought it was a combination (in not particular order) of look, charisma, character, and in-ring ability (having move sets with more than 3 moves NOT including submissions). now it seems like a wrestler 'sucks' if he cant perform a good headlock, or have his match move at a snails pace. so what is it these days? did these fans watch wrestling throughout the 90's and just now voice their opinions more bc of the rise of social media, or is this a new thing? everyone wants to hate on tna, but their matches are 10x more entertaining to watch (in my opinion) than wwe (sans matches including hogan, flair, sting, etc)
it seems like everyone wants to be like jim f'n cornette these days and complain about how this wrestler or that wrestler cant 'wrestle', but then speak highly of some mid-carder, that isnt interesting, with a boring move set. on that note, has jim cornette ever liked ANYTHING that he didnt have a part of? (thats a whole different rant.....)......so, to a mark, what EXACTLY makes one a 'great wrestler'? and are they still a 'great wrestler' if they 'sell out' and spend years in wwe? is it bc of the new fans? what am i missing in making a determination of what a 'good wrestler' is? is it only wrestling when there are headlocks and submissions? why when a guys moveset consists of sidewalk slam, spinebuster, powerbomb, gorilla press, etc, does he suck, yet when a guy punches, kicks, does a ddt, a powerslam, and a bunch of made-up submissions hes 'a really great wrestler'?
am i just jaded and wanting to relive the 'glory days' or the 90's, or has the landscape really changed? imo, there are 5 or less FULL TIME guys in wwe that are entertaining, and therefore, not enough people to have entertaining matches.
I've never wrestled professionally. Just amateur. But I wanna see u flip out. Sooooo. Diesel was a terrible draw. There! I give u permission to flip!!!oh, and if i hear one more person who has NEVER BEEN A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER FOR WWE OR WCW talk about 'drawing', im gonna flip out
Hey all I have to say is WHAT? 2012? Sorry but I didn't realize it was a post from 3 years ago! WTF why was that even replied to? Someone's been at least 12 feet under doing some big time grave digging to pull this one out.@KD2837 ^^^ Too long to quote, but,
1. I don't think the casual fans were really into Bryan that much when I made my post back in 2012. It wasn't until a year or so later that he really picked up steam with those fans.
2. Like I said in my last post, that post was created 3 years ago when I made my first venture into the IWC. There were all these guys being hyped and "put over" that I just didn't understand. I got so many negs from that original post over THE MIZ. The 2012 Miz. The worst WWE champion I've ever personally seen with the dumbest, blandest, most generic gimmick of being "awesome."
But yeah, like I said, after being here for a few years, I've got a better grasp on it. It was just very strange joining the IWC because all of the opinions were new to me.... and my use of "everyone" was obviously just a generalization. I guess it would have been more accurate to say, "more people than not", but you know.
Edit: I also think it's worth noting that I had taken a hiatus until early 2010, so times had changed vastly with regard to the fans and what people like.