Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Addicted to Sex & Candy
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If you don't bother to atleast get a peak at this, then you're just another ignorant son of a bitch who knows they are wrong.

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin has said that he'll be on Raw next month for a guest apperance! Most of the fans, "Aw, SCSA showing up on RAW? A TV-PG Austin? This'll suck!

"The Rock" is supposedly in talks with WWE concerning some projects and perhaps an apperance. Everyone else? Oh, great... Dwayne Johnson, 'The TV-PG Rock' on Raw.

My point? The real point? People have gotten to be so obsessed with the TV rating they see before any WWE televised advised event comes on. Truth be told, some can't wait for the block box with the white letters "TVPG" to pop up so they have something to whine and cry about, something most of the IWC has become infamous for (and some people wonder why certain promotions wont pay attention to the fans of the Internet, not matter how interactive it may be.

Is WWE really going to be that much better if someone is yelling, "C'mon, you bitch!" or, "You ain't nothing but a silly bastard". Do you tune in to watch wrestling because of the actual WRESTLING or do you get a kick out of anyone who uses a curse word?

Oh... wait.. wait.. Hell! <chuckle>... Damn! <some more chuckling>... Ass! <giggles> .... Bitch! <laughter>... Piss! <some more laughter> ... Silly jackass bastard! <lol laughter>. Hey, has that made my post that much better? Has it made it that much more entertaining? I know I'm far from being one of the more entertaining posters on this site (can't be long-winded and entertaining at the same time; can't have it both ways).

I've been brewing up this debate for a little bit so I've been watching a little more wrestling - some from the 90s, ten years ago and now. The conclussion I've came up with is that people need to stop bitching about the product being rated "TV-PG" because it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference if it was "TV-14" or "TV-MA". They could curse, use all the racial slurs, and see plenty of more members join Vince's 'Kiss My Ass Club' or see the ever-so-missed "Bra and Panties" match-ups, but it wouldn't make a difference because what WWE has failed to do is find a wrestler or create a character that is in high demand with the fans. John Cena is really the last one who captured that magic. Randy Orton's momentum has slowly decreased ever since he put a smile back on his face. John Morrison was a complete fail after they built him up with his own DVD - his own DVD before many veterans who had been around much longer, have had much more to talk about any many more moments and matches that are classics compared to Morrion's realtively short-career, thus far. Obviously, he was building toward a nice push if WWE came out with a DVD about the acrobatic rock star, but he just can't get into a strong, intense, believable feud and his fan reaction has been dying since. Hopefully, his storyline with Sheamus to come will help bring his career back some hottness.

A lot of you fans who complain about the TV rating are hypocrites. Are you the ones who complained that WWE needed to pay more attention to TNA when it came to having a Women's division because they got tired of the gimmicktry of "Bra and Panties" and "Pillow Fight" matches and such? Now, you just had one helluva match last Monday feauturing Nattie and Michelle McCool and, damn, that was one of the finest women's (or diva's) mathches in a while. Isn't that you wanted? More women's matches and less pillow fights? Or do you not know what you want?

Blood and chairs were being highly over-done before WWE changed it's policy on them each. But, as we all know, when WWE creates a "new" policy, it's only a matter of time before we see it slowly go away. The less blood, the better because that will make the matches and the storyline more dramatic and more intense... Well, that is, if blood actually does comeback. I mean, yeah, it pisses me off when someone is bleeding and the match is stopped to have EMTs super-glue the cut. I mean, that's like stopping an UFC or Boxing match in the middle of action because of blood and the doctors call for a quick "time" to put it back together. That part, I agree, is BS. I don't which states really do have rules against blood (I know here, in Maryland, we do, and Balls Mahoney is banned from ever competing here ever again... this was a while ago). But you can't expect this policy to stick around forever. Sometimes, if the match is going just right and so is the crowd, the blood will make the match so much better, even sometimes MAKING the match.

But you don't need blood to enjoy wrestling. Hey, who enjoys sex when their girl is bleeding? It's not a pleasent thing to earn your redwings. It's all about the wrestling and the product they put on, not the blood. It's all about the wrestlers, the storylines and the characters they create to keep the fans hooked, not the blood. If WWE can get back to doing that again instead of making Ted DiBiase, Kofi Kingston, Daniel Bryan (yeah, he's not doing much... he's not in an angle!) and everyone else we know who is floating around in limbo, then the fans wouldn't have to bitch like they dropped salt on their sprained pussy.

Chair shots certainly haven't changed the game the same way the NFL has made helmet-to-helmet shots illegal. They're many more things much more devestating than a chair shot - but people are too busy feeling much too devestated by a "TV PG" ratings.

And it's pathetic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
542 Posts
WWE has proven that it doesn't need blood, curses words or dumb bra and panties matches to draw in money any more. TV-PG rating is here to stay and probably for a long time. Charismatic superstars such as The Miz, Alex Riley, John Cena, Wade Barret, CM Punk, Chris Jericho, Christian, Triple H, Batista (latest heel gimmick) and even Edge has proven to still cut very good promos under this rating and have excellent matches with out blood under the TV - PG rating.

If you dont like the WWE anymore because of the tv rating then dont watch. At the end of the day no one is forcing you do watch Raw or Smackdown every week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prime Time Keim

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
Oh... wait.. wait.. Hell! <chuckle>... Damn! <some more chuckling>... Ass! <giggles> .... Bitch! <laughter>... Piss! <some more laughter> ... Silly jackass bastard! <lol laughter>. Hey, has that made my post that much better? Has it made it that much more entertaining? I know I'm far from being one of the more entertaining posters on this site (can't be long-winded and entertaining at the same time; can't have it both ways).
This paragraph is highly subjective. Especially the last part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Nice post. I lolled and agreed.

People whining over TV-PG. I can understand the argument that at times it falls closer to G rated but whatev. I've enjoyed WWE PG, tbh.
 

·
Addicted to Sex & Candy
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
This hurt my head as it was poorly written.
Yeah, so poorly "written", despite the fact that it was actually typed. Maybe if I typed, "dis is wutzz upp. wwe ned 2 b whut thy need 2 be. tvpg tvpg14 tvma it dont mattr as lung az d produck iz is gd n thy hve strng storeeylinnes thn whoe carz bout duh tv rattting?". Next time, I'll think about stooping to the level of being as lazy as people can be on their instant messenger, facebook, twitter (loser if you have one) or any other way to chat with others to prove how intelligent I'm not.

Seriously, I must be the first person to quote whoever the hell it is I quoted. Hope I made them feel important. Too bad that they couldn't be a tad bit more creative when trying to insult somebody. But, hey - it's the WWE section; that's asking for too much! And, oh yeah, the "who cares how it was 'written' seems like everyone but your retarded dyke-self understood it and as long as they understand it then shut you smark-ass up, yadda yadda yadda.

I've gotta give credits to Cerbs because it's pretty ballsy to be showing some love for the Bills.

The Batista heel-turn was nice. It was a good change. He was so tired and stale as a face. He didn't have to be a big, menacing heel who'd dominate the faces - he was the cry-baby heel, which was a nice twist because the man is huge and instead of crying about something, you think he'd use some muscle to take care of business. Instead, the man showed he had some untapped talent and a whole 'nother demension by being the cry-baby heel.

The Miz needs to either to cash in the MITB briefcase and either win it or lose it. He's just floating around. Yes, he's cutting amazing promo after amazing promo each and every week - though, sounding a bit more like Jericho with each promo, but they're still very heavy and get the point across. The Miz has been shooting his mouth off about how he is a future WWE Champion, leaning towards what could be a swerve in The Miz completely failing, then going on an Edge-like craze for the Championshionship circa late 2004 and through-out his feud with Cena in 2006. The Miz could lose, come very close at the Royal Rumble but lose, come close at the Elimination Chamber, oh so close, but lose and then win the Money in the Bank at WrestleMania and either cash it in that night (judging on how Hogan beat Yokozuna immediately after he won the WWF title, that helped made WM9 one of the worst BS WrestleMania's ever with, perhaps, the worst ending to a WM ever) or on Raw for either the WWE Championship or the World Championship. The WWE Champion and the World Champion are usually on the same show for weeks prior to WrestleMania and maybe a show or two after WrestleMania. Who knows? By the time WrestleMania comes around, The Miz' welcome on Raw might be tired and boring and he may need a switch in a new scene and breathe some life into Smackdown with a fresh dozen of opponents.

You've got the Cena/Nexus/Orton thing going on. IMO, what Nexus did to The Undertaker is going to lead to something involving John Cena, thus we'll see Cena/'Taker at WrestleMania in what would be one helluva match. And this is all without worry about "TV-PG". Nothing needs to be overdone in the Cena/Nexus angle with "curse this" and "curse that", then with the match with Orton not needing a fiesta of chairs and a trip to the blood bank.

As long as the stories are solid, and the wrestling is solid, and the build-up is solid, then people should forget about the damn rating. If a movie looks good, is the rating going to stop you from going? Do you seriously only watch movies that are "Rated R"? Or are you a bit religious and seeing anything that's above "TV PG" is too much for you (even though some strict Christians don't even go to the movies)? Hell, no! Ratings don't keep people from seeing the movies! Hell, not even what some critics say keep people from going to the movies and enjoying themselves. And if you're not going to complain about the rating of a movie you, for the most part, enjoyed - then, why would you complain about the rating of Wrestling that, for the most part, you still must enjoy if you're still watching it despite the rating and you're either posting on this forum about how over-rated this person is or how so and so is so mis-used... Either way, you're watching, and it's not because of the rating.

The rating just gives you something to bitch about. It's completely understandable to believe that WWE went 'TV-PG' becaused of Linda's failed attempt for senate seat, but for the most part, WWE has still been going strong and things have been interesting. And then you look at TNA: They try to pick up the TV rating where the WWE left off - have plenty of wrestlers curse like sailors, have enough blood to make you want to start your own tampoon business which would be booming, and have done enough to look like WWF Attitude-Lite and still fail, just as WCW attempted the same exact thing, and look where that led them.

Both promotions have proven that the TV rating is a non-facor. TNA can put on as many adult-oriented storylines as they want and still suck. WWE can clash the "TV-PG" rating a billion more times everytime they put up their "Stand up for the WWE" video and cater to all age groups with stupid and silly and brutal 'comedy', yet strongly deliver on interesting stoylines such as what is going on with Kane, Cena, Nexus (both w/ Cena and Wade & Otunga fighting over leadership), a possible "dream match" in the works with CM Punk and Daniel Bryan (obviously, I know he's injured, that's why I said WrestleMania) if they choose to follow up as to why CM Punk was out with Cole and Lawler and doing announcing during Daniel's match with Dolph. Hopefully the WWE just doesn't "forget it" like other storylines they've dropped in the past because this a match that any hardcore fan wants to see.

Forget blood. Forget cussing. Forget chairs. Just strong story-telling. That's how it works in movies and "entertainment" afterall.

And, 666, if you would've taken advantadge of the fact that it's Saturday and you must have some free time, you could've used that to see that I was telling everyone else to 'get over it'. When did I say Austin wasn't on Raw and wasn't entertaining? Even if there are too many words for your head, atleast give it a peak because it's better to have an idea to reply to something and almost seem like you know what you're posting about before making a smark-ass out of yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cerbs

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
If you don't bother to atleast get a peak at this, then you're just another ignorant son of a bitch who knows they are wrong.

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin has said that he'll be on Raw next month for a guest apperance! Most of the fans, "Aw, SCSA showing up on RAW? A TV-PG Austin? This'll suck!

"The Rock" is supposedly in talks with WWE concerning some projects and perhaps an apperance. Everyone else? Oh, great... Dwayne Johnson, 'The TV-PG Rock' on Raw.

My point? The real point? People have gotten to be so obsessed with the TV rating they see before any WWE televised advised event comes on. Truth be told, some can't wait for the block box with the white letters "TVPG" to pop up so they have something to whine and cry about, something most of the IWC has become infamous for (and some people wonder why certain promotions wont pay attention to the fans of the Internet, not matter how interactive it may be.

Is WWE really going to be that much better if someone is yelling, "C'mon, you bitch!" or, "You ain't nothing but a silly bastard". Do you tune in to watch wrestling because of the actual WRESTLING or do you get a kick out of anyone who uses a curse word?

Oh... wait.. wait.. Hell! <chuckle>... Damn! <some more chuckling>... Ass! <giggles> .... Bitch! <laughter>... Piss! <some more laughter> ... Silly jackass bastard! <lol laughter>. Hey, has that made my post that much better? Has it made it that much more entertaining? I know I'm far from being one of the more entertaining posters on this site (can't be long-winded and entertaining at the same time; can't have it both ways).

I've been brewing up this debate for a little bit so I've been watching a little more wrestling - some from the 90s, ten years ago and now. The conclussion I've came up with is that people need to stop bitching about the product being rated "TV-PG" because it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference if it was "TV-14" or "TV-MA". They could curse, use all the racial slurs, and see plenty of more members join Vince's 'Kiss My Ass Club' or see the ever-so-missed "Bra and Panties" match-ups, but it wouldn't make a difference because what WWE has failed to do is find a wrestler or create a character that is in high demand with the fans. John Cena is really the last one who captured that magic. Randy Orton's momentum has slowly decreased ever since he put a smile back on his face. John Morrison was a complete fail after they built him up with his own DVD - his own DVD before many veterans who had been around much longer, have had much more to talk about any many more moments and matches that are classics compared to Morrion's realtively short-career, thus far. Obviously, he was building toward a nice push if WWE came out with a DVD about the acrobatic rock star, but he just can't get into a strong, intense, believable feud and his fan reaction has been dying since. Hopefully, his storyline with Sheamus to come will help bring his career back some hottness.

A lot of you fans who complain about the TV rating are hypocrites. Are you the ones who complained that WWE needed to pay more attention to TNA when it came to having a Women's division because they got tired of the gimmicktry of "Bra and Panties" and "Pillow Fight" matches and such? Now, you just had one helluva match last Monday feauturing Nattie and Michelle McCool and, damn, that was one of the finest women's (or diva's) mathches in a while. Isn't that you wanted? More women's matches and less pillow fights? Or do you not know what you want?

Blood and chairs were being highly over-done before WWE changed it's policy on them each. But, as we all know, when WWE creates a "new" policy, it's only a matter of time before we see it slowly go away. The less blood, the better because that will make the matches and the storyline more dramatic and more intense... Well, that is, if blood actually does comeback. I mean, yeah, it pisses me off when someone is bleeding and the match is stopped to have EMTs super-glue the cut. I mean, that's like stopping an UFC or Boxing match in the middle of action because of blood and the doctors call for a quick "time" to put it back together. That part, I agree, is BS. I don't which states really do have rules against blood (I know here, in Maryland, we do, and Balls Mahoney is banned from ever competing here ever again... this was a while ago). But you can't expect this policy to stick around forever. Sometimes, if the match is going just right and so is the crowd, the blood will make the match so much better, even sometimes MAKING the match.

But you don't need blood to enjoy wrestling. Hey, who enjoys sex when their girl is bleeding? It's not a pleasent thing to earn your redwings. It's all about the wrestling and the product they put on, not the blood. It's all about the wrestlers, the storylines and the characters they create to keep the fans hooked, not the blood. If WWE can get back to doing that again instead of making Ted DiBiase, Kofi Kingston, Daniel Bryan (yeah, he's not doing much... he's not in an angle!) and everyone else we know who is floating around in limbo, then the fans wouldn't have to bitch like they dropped salt on their sprained pussy.

Chair shots certainly haven't changed the game the same way the NFL has made helmet-to-helmet shots illegal. They're many more things much more devestating than a chair shot - but people are too busy feeling much too devestated by a "TV PG" ratings.

And it's pathetic.
i agree, and it's not just the bitching about the tv rating. (and btw, wwe was pg 15 years ago as well and it got higher ratings than it does now, so i dont think that the shows being rated tv-pg has anything to do with the actual rating number it gets.)

people bitch about everything! they wanted orton to be a face..well, they got it and now everyone seems to hate him... people want the wwe to push new guys and give young guys titles..they do that and then complain that they dont "deserve" the spot. the list of things people complain about goes on and on and on. if christian gets pushed, guaranteed people bitch about it.
 

·
Unlucky! Better luck next time!
Joined
·
416 Posts


I agree with what I read. My head started hurting after a while. I can't deal with this much text with a hangover.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
Yeah, so poorly "written", despite the fact that it was actually typed. Maybe if I typed, "dis is wutzz upp. wwe ned 2 b whut thy need 2 be. tvpg tvpg14 tvma it dont mattr as lung az d produck iz is gd n thy hve strng storeeylinnes thn whoe carz bout duh tv rattting?". Next time, I'll think about stooping to the level of being as lazy as people can be on their instant messenger, facebook, twitter (loser if you have one) or any other way to chat with others to prove how intelligent I'm not.

Seriously, I must be the first person to quote whoever the hell it is I quoted. Hope I made them feel important. Too bad that they couldn't be a tad bit more creative when trying to insult somebody. But, hey - it's the WWE section; that's asking for too much! And, oh yeah, the "who cares how it was 'written' seems like everyone but your retarded dyke-self understood it and as long as they understand it then shut you smark-ass up, yadda yadda yadda.

I've gotta give credits to Cerbs because it's pretty ballsy to be showing some love for the Bills.

The Batista heel-turn was nice. It was a good change. He was so tired and stale as a face. He didn't have to be a big, menacing heel who'd dominate the faces - he was the cry-baby heel, which was a nice twist because the man is huge and instead of crying about something, you think he'd use some muscle to take care of business. Instead, the man showed he had some untapped talent and a whole 'nother demension by being the cry-baby heel.

The Miz needs to either to cash in the MITB briefcase and either win it or lose it. He's just floating around. Yes, he's cutting amazing promo after amazing promo each and every week - though, sounding a bit more like Jericho with each promo, but they're still very heavy and get the point across. The Miz has been shooting his mouth off about how he is a future WWE Champion, leaning towards what could be a swerve in The Miz completely failing, then going on an Edge-like craze for the Championshionship circa late 2004 and through-out his feud with Cena in 2006. The Miz could lose, come very close at the Royal Rumble but lose, come close at the Elimination Chamber, oh so close, but lose and then win the Money in the Bank at WrestleMania and either cash it in that night (judging on how Hogan beat Yokozuna immediately after he won the WWF title, that helped made WM9 one of the worst BS WrestleMania's ever with, perhaps, the worst ending to a WM ever) or on Raw for either the WWE Championship or the World Championship. The WWE Champion and the World Champion are usually on the same show for weeks prior to WrestleMania and maybe a show or two after WrestleMania. Who knows? By the time WrestleMania comes around, The Miz' welcome on Raw might be tired and boring and he may need a switch in a new scene and breathe some life into Smackdown with a fresh dozen of opponents.

You've got the Cena/Nexus/Orton thing going on. IMO, what Nexus did to The Undertaker is going to lead to something involving John Cena, thus we'll see Cena/'Taker at WrestleMania in what would be one helluva match. And this is all without worry about "TV-PG". Nothing needs to be overdone in the Cena/Nexus angle with "curse this" and "curse that", then with the match with Orton not needing a fiesta of chairs and a trip to the blood bank.

As long as the stories are solid, and the wrestling is solid, and the build-up is solid, then people should forget about the damn rating. If a movie looks good, is the rating going to stop you from going? Do you seriously only watch movies that are "Rated R"? Or are you a bit religious and seeing anything that's above "TV PG" is too much for you (even though some strict Christians don't even go to the movies)? Hell, no! Ratings don't keep people from seeing the movies! Hell, not even what some critics say keep people from going to the movies and enjoying themselves. And if you're not going to complain about the rating of a movie you, for the most part, enjoyed - then, why would you complain about the rating of Wrestling that, for the most part, you still must enjoy if you're still watching it despite the rating and you're either posting on this forum about how over-rated this person is or how so and so is so mis-used... Either way, you're watching, and it's not because of the rating.

The rating just gives you something to bitch about. It's completely understandable to believe that WWE went 'TV-PG' becaused of Linda's failed attempt for senate seat, but for the most part, WWE has still been going strong and things have been interesting. And then you look at TNA: They try to pick up the TV rating where the WWE left off - have plenty of wrestlers curse like sailors, have enough blood to make you want to start your own tampoon business which would be booming, and have done enough to look like WWF Attitude-Lite and still fail, just as WCW attempted the same exact thing, and look where that led them.

Both promotions have proven that the TV rating is a non-facor. TNA can put on as many adult-oriented storylines as they want and still suck. WWE can clash the "TV-PG" rating a billion more times everytime they put up their "Stand up for the WWE" video and cater to all age groups with stupid and silly and brutal 'comedy', yet strongly deliver on interesting stoylines such as what is going on with Kane, Cena, Nexus (both w/ Cena and Wade & Otunga fighting over leadership), a possible "dream match" in the works with CM Punk and Daniel Bryan (obviously, I know he's injured, that's why I said WrestleMania) if they choose to follow up as to why CM Punk was out with Cole and Lawler and doing announcing during Daniel's match with Dolph. Hopefully the WWE just doesn't "forget it" like other storylines they've dropped in the past because this a match that any hardcore fan wants to see.

Forget blood. Forget cussing. Forget chairs. Just strong story-telling. That's how it works in movies and "entertainment" afterall.

And, 666, if you would've taken advantadge of the fact that it's Saturday and you must have some free time, you could've used that to see that I was telling everyone else to 'get over it'. When did I say Austin wasn't on Raw and wasn't entertaining? Even if there are too many words for your head, atleast give it a peak because it's better to have an idea to reply to something and almost seem like you know what you're posting about before making a smark-ass out of yourself.

i agree. again, people need to go back to the mid-early 90s and even before that. wrestling was really, really good back then. and it was PG!
 

·
The Mouth of Madness!
Joined
·
10,934 Posts
i agree. again, people need to go back to the mid-early 90s and even before that. wrestling was really, really good back then. and it was PG!
It's not so much as the PG rating. Its the content that is shaped and formed to be delivered to the lowest common denominator.

The lack of blood is ridiculous. If they don't blade they won't bleed. And if they do bleed, it's usually a scratch. We get commercial during Raw about girl's on their periods and we see them showing in detail what the tampons do. But does WWE worry about that? No. It's not the blood or the boobs, it's the lack of passion. Wrestlers there for the paycheck or just going through the motions.

Am I saying that we need blood at every turn no. But you give me a ppv based on the evils known as Hell in a Cell and The Elimination Chamber, and there in so brutality? You just told me that meh, believability doesn't matter though you want the story. ppvs are promising me a story. Not a fairy tale wrapped in plastic and bubble wrap, handled with kid gloves.

Imagine if the SCSA Bret Hart match at Mania had no blood. It was still a brutal match that told you the story that no matter what, Bret Hart, BRET FUCKING HART, couldn't make SCSA tap out! He couldn't make him quit, he couldn't make him say stop, don't, please, I give, I beg you! In the whole that is that entire performance, the blood trickling down Austin's face as he screams in pain while yelling no! NO! NO! Was the cherry on top.

And the crowd cheering as he shows he will never bee broken, he will never quit. Then he passes out lifeless, beaten and broken, but he never lost his will. He told you at that moment, that no matter what, you'll have to kill me before old Stone Cold quits. It's moments like that that this generation is missing. Not tits, not ass, not fucks and shits. Passion, emotion, sacrifice...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chV0HCuSxxg - At 1:58, that's what I want!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECT82UWPgmg - I want this as a whole!

Not Attitude, everyone says Attitude, it the Aggression era people want. 1998 - 2000 were great, but 2000 - 2003, 2005 for SD!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,677 Posts
i agree. again, people need to go back to the mid-early 90s and even before that. wrestling was really, really good back then. and it was PG!
I agree. People should be blaming the "creative" team more. It is the reason people should be calling this era "The Watered Down" era and not the PG era.
 

·
Addicted to Sex & Candy
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I agree, as we all do, that people will always bitch about everything, hence: The reason why we have forums. People don't use forums to talk about their love for wrestling, rather, their hatred for anyone named Vince or whathaveyou.

I partially agree about the SCSA/Bret Hart part and how "Stone Cold" was made that night, and I think I can compare it to a decent rivalry and match. But, first: If any ONE of those factors of the Bret Hart/Steve Austin match (e.g. Austin bleeding like a a mother trucker... Ken Shamrock being the ref to add to the match... The overall hot Chicago crowd that night... Bret being on the bring of a heel and vice versa with Austin), if either one of those factors were missing that night, not just the blood, then it may've never been the classic that it has been made out to be. What if Austin still bled like a stuffed pig, but the crowd just wasn't into it because of the lousy undercard? Looking back, us wrestling fans have to depend on that crowd as much as we depended on the performers that night. Hell, case in point: I'm sure we depend on the crowd for every Raw, Smackdown and PPV because no one wants to watch a show with a dead crowd.

Anyway, take away Shamrock and have any old WWF ref in that match. Sure, the fans still would've gone crazy for Austin, but we may've not seen the masterful 'double-turn' that we saw that night. If a, like, Earl Hebner tried to pull Bret off or some old timer who was an agent at the time, and Bret had his fist cocked but didn't unwind, then I don't think the crowd would've really cared. But because it was Ken Shamrock, everyone knew it was a big deal because everyone knows the dude is a legit tough guy and any wrestling fan knows the background of any Hart, so it was like, in the moment, "Oh, shoot! Shamrock and Bret are about to go at it! Yeah, see if your daddy taught you how to whoop Shamrock's ass, Bret!". All the ingredients were there for a perfect match and if either one was missing, then I doubt that Austin would've been the huge icon that he is today and I doubt we'd be talking about that match as one of the all time classics.

The match I want to compare it to: Chris Jericho Vs. Chris Benoit (Judgement Day 2000? I forget the PPV). No blood. Not sure if there was a stipulation (but, well... atleast I remember it was Benoit's bday). I went to their Backlash match a month before and remember the triple threat match they had with Angle, so the rivalry was just heating up. Submission wrestling was really making a comeback, especially with Benoit and Jericho. I guess they wanted Jericho to come off as someone tough with the 'never say die attitude' cliche' because he was put in the crossface, but never gave up, yet the ref stopped the match. How many people can honestly say they remember that match or that it's on their list for one of their favorite matches ever? Would a little blood had made a difference? Would a hotter crowd had made it memorable? Would having a special enforcer had made it a classic and would've helped Chris Jericho shoot to super-stardom atleast a single notch that Austin had reached by then? I doubt it. Both have/had the ability to make anyone look good. Both could be very physical. It's just mystical how everything can come together ala Austin/Hart. But, like I said - both Bret and Austin were teetering on either-side by the time their WrestleMania match took place. So, it should come to no suprise that Austin would become face and Bret would become heel. But, it did come by as a pleasent suprise as to when and how it happened and how big of a deal it was when it did happen.

And just one more example: I remember when I first joined this forum. Triple H/Cena was the biggest thing going and the big talk was their upcoming WrestleMania match in, of course, Chicago. By then, Cena hearing more jeers than cheers and people wanted someone who could 'wrestle', ala Triple H, to not only beat Cena, but make him look like an idiot in the process as if we were seeing Cena playing the part of Goldberg and Triple H playing the role of Regal when Steve (William) Regal toyed with Greenberg.

People on this forum were getting excited and even predicting another 'double-turn'. You can't predict a 'double-turn', it just happens. But everyone was so excited and turned on Cena and wanted to see him lose just as they once loved Triple H, then hated his guts, and then felt the need to take a break for the last couple of years because their legs got tired from jumping the bandwagon.

But, what if their was a serious amount of blood in that match? What if Cena was bleeding like crazy and Triple H, despite not being a submission-based wrestler, put on a submission convincing enough to make Cena pass out? Would fans actually had regain some of the respect they lost for Cena? Or would a double-turn had worked if Cena woke up from being passed-out, picked up Triple H and nailed an F-U (or as Michael Cole loves to scream, 'AA!'), and stand in the middle of the ring and take in the boos? Or what if Triple H had been bleeding, like he used to (damn, that man knew how to bleed), and Cena locked in the STFU (oops, sorry... STF). Triple H just passes out. Cena wont let go for another 30 seconds or so. So, do you think the fans would've been 90% pro HHH? Would Cena had been a heel walking back to the dressing room? I doubt it because by this time, Cena's mechandise was already looming and, despite what WWE may say, they don't always let the fans decide.

TNA is still looking for a match where blood added to the drama. Blood in wrestling has become like everything in wrestling: Over-done. Chairs have worn off. Tables aren't as popular as they once were. And who hasn't seen a little blood or bled a little bit by now?

Everyone knows that, besides the 'entertainment' part, it's also an art. Blood isn't always the pefect texture to add because it isn't always needed. It's not like flipping a coin, like how TNA probably does, and say, "Okay, heads.. you bleed like crazy and tails.. just the normal blade job".

You can compare it to wrestling moves: It's not how many you know, but how you use them and what you do with them. With blood, it's if used under the right rivalry, situation, opponent, etc.. Not the sake for bleeding just to bleed.

WWE can survive without blood, but the policy probably will die out in, like, a year or less. Remember reading about the "violence policy" WWF was going through during the mid-90s and HBK/Hall couldn't use the ladder as a weapon and Bret Vs. Nash where using a chair and Hart going through a table was a no-no and then Bret bleeding like crazy at the next PPV against the Britist Bulldog was seen as an even bigger no-no? It all eventually fades away.

I guess it's the "TV:pG" era, but I don't want to see another "Attitude Era" or another "Ruthless Aggression" era (whatever the hell that was). I thought fans wanted something original? Despite the fact that nothing is original and most storylines and gimmicks and angles are recycled, I'd like to see a new era with some creativity that looks nothing like the 'Attitude Era' or the 'Ruthless Aggression Era'. The 'Attitude Era' resembled absolutely nothing of the 'Rock n Wrestling' era, and that's what made it so great. The 'Ruthless Aggression era' looked nothing like the 'Attitude Era', which made it so different. If 'TV:pG' is an era, then fine... Atleast make it all look strong. If not, wrestling is just in a limbo until it can figure out what it wants and what we want. And, no... Us wrestling fans can't even decide what we want either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,438 Posts
I agree, as we all do, that people will always bitch about everything, hence: The reason why we have forums. People don't use forums to talk about their love for wrestling, rather, their hatred for anyone named Vince or whathaveyou.

I partially agree about the SCSA/Bret Hart part and how "Stone Cold" was made that night, and I think I can compare it to a decent rivalry and match. But, first: If any ONE of those factors of the Bret Hart/Steve Austin match (e.g. Austin bleeding like a a mother trucker... Ken Shamrock being the ref to add to the match... The overall hot Chicago crowd that night... Bret being on the bring of a heel and vice versa with Austin), if either one of those factors were missing that night, not just the blood, then it may've never been the classic that it has been made out to be. What if Austin still bled like a stuffed pig, but the crowd just wasn't into it because of the lousy undercard? Looking back, us wrestling fans have to depend on that crowd as much as we depended on the performers that night. Hell, case in point: I'm sure we depend on the crowd for every Raw, Smackdown and PPV because no one wants to watch a show with a dead crowd.

Anyway, take away Shamrock and have any old WWF ref in that match. Sure, the fans still would've gone crazy for Austin, but we may've not seen the masterful 'double-turn' that we saw that night. If a, like, Earl Hebner tried to pull Bret off or some old timer who was an agent at the time, and Bret had his fist cocked but didn't unwind, then I don't think the crowd would've really cared. But because it was Ken Shamrock, everyone knew it was a big deal because everyone knows the dude is a legit tough guy and any wrestling fan knows the background of any Hart, so it was like, in the moment, "Oh, shoot! Shamrock and Bret are about to go at it! Yeah, see if your daddy taught you how to whoop Shamrock's ass, Bret!". All the ingredients were there for a perfect match and if either one was missing, then I doubt that Austin would've been the huge icon that he is today and I doubt we'd be talking about that match as one of the all time classics.

The match I want to compare it to: Chris Jericho Vs. Chris Benoit (Judgement Day 2000? I forget the PPV). No blood. Not sure if there was a stipulation (but, well... atleast I remember it was Benoit's bday). I went to their Backlash match a month before and remember the triple threat match they had with Angle, so the rivalry was just heating up. Submission wrestling was really making a comeback, especially with Benoit and Jericho. I guess they wanted Jericho to come off as someone tough with the 'never say die attitude' cliche' because he was put in the crossface, but never gave up, yet the ref stopped the match. How many people can honestly say they remember that match or that it's on their list for one of their favorite matches ever? Would a little blood had made a difference? Would a hotter crowd had made it memorable? Would having a special enforcer had made it a classic and would've helped Chris Jericho shoot to super-stardom atleast a single notch that Austin had reached by then? I doubt it. Both have/had the ability to make anyone look good. Both could be very physical. It's just mystical how everything can come together ala Austin/Hart. But, like I said - both Bret and Austin were teetering on either-side by the time their WrestleMania match took place. So, it should come to no suprise that Austin would become face and Bret would become heel. But, it did come by as a pleasent suprise as to when and how it happened and how big of a deal it was when it did happen.

And just one more example: I remember when I first joined this forum. Triple H/Cena was the biggest thing going and the big talk was their upcoming WrestleMania match in, of course, Chicago. By then, Cena hearing more jeers than cheers and people wanted someone who could 'wrestle', ala Triple H, to not only beat Cena, but make him look like an idiot in the process as if we were seeing Cena playing the part of Goldberg and Triple H playing the role of Regal when Steve (William) Regal toyed with Greenberg.

People on this forum were getting excited and even predicting another 'double-turn'. You can't predict a 'double-turn', it just happens. But everyone was so excited and turned on Cena and wanted to see him lose just as they once loved Triple H, then hated his guts, and then felt the need to take a break for the last couple of years because their legs got tired from jumping the bandwagon.

But, what if their was a serious amount of blood in that match? What if Cena was bleeding like crazy and Triple H, despite not being a submission-based wrestler, put on a submission convincing enough to make Cena pass out? Would fans actually had regain some of the respect they lost for Cena? Or would a double-turn had worked if Cena woke up from being passed-out, picked up Triple H and nailed an F-U (or as Michael Cole loves to scream, 'AA!'), and stand in the middle of the ring and take in the boos? Or what if Triple H had been bleeding, like he used to (damn, that man knew how to bleed), and Cena locked in the STFU (oops, sorry... STF). Triple H just passes out. Cena wont let go for another 30 seconds or so. So, do you think the fans would've been 90% pro HHH? Would Cena had been a heel walking back to the dressing room? I doubt it because by this time, Cena's mechandise was already looming and, despite what WWE may say, they don't always let the fans decide.

TNA is still looking for a match where blood added to the drama. Blood in wrestling has become like everything in wrestling: Over-done. Chairs have worn off. Tables aren't as popular as they once were. And who hasn't seen a little blood or bled a little bit by now?

Everyone knows that, besides the 'entertainment' part, it's also an art. Blood isn't always the pefect texture to add because it isn't always needed. It's not like flipping a coin, like how TNA probably does, and say, "Okay, heads.. you bleed like crazy and tails.. just the normal blade job".

You can compare it to wrestling moves: It's not how many you know, but how you use them and what you do with them. With blood, it's if used under the right rivalry, situation, opponent, etc.. Not the sake for bleeding just to bleed.

WWE can survive without blood, but the policy probably will die out in, like, a year or less. Remember reading about the "violence policy" WWF was going through during the mid-90s and HBK/Hall couldn't use the ladder as a weapon and Bret Vs. Nash where using a chair and Hart going through a table was a no-no and then Bret bleeding like crazy at the next PPV against the Britist Bulldog was seen as an even bigger no-no? It all eventually fades away.

I guess it's the "TV:pG" era, but I don't want to see another "Attitude Era" or another "Ruthless Aggression" era (whatever the hell that was). I thought fans wanted something original? Despite the fact that nothing is original and most storylines and gimmicks and angles are recycled, I'd like to see a new era with some creativity that looks nothing like the 'Attitude Era' or the 'Ruthless Aggression Era'. The 'Attitude Era' resembled absolutely nothing of the 'Rock n Wrestling' era, and that's what made it so great. The 'Ruthless Aggression era' looked nothing like the 'Attitude Era', which made it so different. If 'TV:pG' is an era, then fine... Atleast make it all look strong. If not, wrestling is just in a limbo until it can figure out what it wants and what we want. And, no... Us wrestling fans can't even decide what we want either.
It does not matter what the TV rating is. WWE have a bunch of Jackasses writing for them who think the show is a variety hour show and have removed nearly all the passion the shows use to have. WWE could write some amazing shows right now with the talent they have but they have taken this PG rating which is subjective to begin with and have used it to water down their product because of many reason they have a sponsorship deal with Mattel. Their is no need for an attitude era or anything like it to have to come back just make people care again which right now no one does.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
Thats way too much to read over a pro wrestling rant.
 

·
The Mouth of Madness!
Joined
·
10,934 Posts
I understand everything you were saying PTK and I agree for the most part. But my point was that out of all that, you had an amazing story told by these performers. And in the end, the blood was just the icing on the cake. Take away anything from any situation and you make less impact. I'm just saying out of all the things you listed, the crowd, the announcing, the destruction, Shamrock not stopping it early, Bret yelling for him to tap and most of all Austin screaming in agony; the blood was just the icing on the cake.

And Hardcore Show, why on fucking Earth did you quote his entire post?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,438 Posts
I understand everything you were saying PTK and I agree for the most part. But my point was that out of all that, you had an amazing story told by these performers. And in the end, the blood was just the icing on the cake. Take away anything from any situation and you make less impact. I'm just saying out of all the things you listed, the crowd, the announcing, the destruction, Shamrock not stopping it early, Bret yelling for him to tap and most of all Austin screaming in agony; the blood was just the icing on the cake.

And Hardcore Show, why on fucking Earth did you quote his entire post?!
Sorry about that.
 

·
Lucy Snorebush
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
The rating doesn't bother me much. Smackdown has been PG for a long, long time. You can actually do quite alot in PG, alot of people don't even realise that PG stands for Parental Guideness, meaning a child needs an adult with them to be watching. You can stretch PG alot, even use light swear words etc, or what not.

The real problem is simply the type of product that WWE is producing for the type of audience they are aiming at, stamping PG over it is just for sponsor recognition. I have a problem with the product, not the rating PG. Let's not forgot that Smackdown had it's best run under PG and produced some of the most entertaining stuff we've seen.

Now for me, blood needs to be used, but in a certain degree. A Hell in a Cell match? I expect blood. Someone takes a chair to another guys head? I expect blood. Blood can sell the match or spot very, very well. I'm not saying use blood as it was in wCw's glory days or even what TNA has done with it in the past year.

Swearing / Cursing, I like it, it seems more real, wrestlers can't even use a basic "I'll kick your ass". Wrestlers that used curse words such as Jericho (see, Ass Clown, etc), Austin (see, most of his promos) could no longer do that.

Part of WWE's problem, for me, is that it doesn't seem to a degree real anymore, whatsoever. By that I mean something like Hell in a Cell, Hardcore matches etc, you know it's fake, but in something like a HIAC match you expect that something could go wrong, it was edgy, a mistake could happen.

As someone who has watched WWE progress in the past 15 years, I have a right to say what I consider the better product and it isn't what WWE is churning out at the moment. I'm not saying I don't like the current product, because I tune in every week, watch the PPVs, it is entertaining to me still, but I believe it can be so much better.

People are going to disagree with people living in the past, i'll hold my hands up and say i'm one of them. I miss the old product so, so much. Call me immature in wanting blood, swearing, beer drinking, chair shots, edginess but that is what I find entertaining, I can't help that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
I just wish one of the companies knew how to find a respectable middle ground on the blood thing. You have one company that overdoes it, and another company that bans it.

This industry doesn't know what the hell to do with itself.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top