Irish Promotions Thread *Please read post 1* (*Mod Warning Post #3947)

SquidLad wrote: »

Well, I was 13. And your tastes change over time. Like I was definitely able to identify some of the really bad stuff but I was just happy to have any live wrestling to go to. It's why I'm trying to emphasize the "not as good as you remember" point. IWW, like the Attitude Era was cool at the time but has aged horribly and I don't necessarily think it would make for the best footage on OTT on demand.

Right, well I’m not gonna tell a small business owner who’s doing really well what they should or shouldn’t do with their business. Someone asked about the old IWW footage, I answered and said it’d be cool if other promotions from today gave their footage to OTT to get extra exposure, but unrealistic in reality. My point about IWW was always that they were important and, while it became cool to stick the boot in, they don’t get the credit they deserve because without them and the other young promotions that blazed a trail...you don’t get the great situation we have today.

I really don’t understand what your issue is though. You say yourself you were happy to have indie wrestling to go to back then. You’re ****ting on lads’ work from 13 years ago while they were inexperienced...why exactly?! Because you’re concerned about your critical reputation as SquidLad and don’t wanna be seen as ‘going easy on them’?

leggo wrote: »

Right, well I’m not gonna tell a small business owner who’s doing really well what they should or shouldn’t do with their business. Someone asked about the old IWW footage, I answered and said it’d be cool if other promotions from today gave their footage to OTT to get extra exposure, but unrealistic in reality. My point about IWW was always that they were important and, while it became cool to stick the boot in, they don’t get the credit they deserve because without them and the other young promotions that blazed a trail...you don’t get the great situation we have today.

I really don’t understand what your issue is though. You say yourself you were happy to have indie wrestling to go to back then. You’re ****ting on lads’ work from 13 years ago while they were inexperienced...why exactly?! Because you’re concerned about your critical reputation as SquidLad and don’t wanna be seen as ‘going easy on them’?

I've explained my position several times now Leggo and it feels like you're being purposefully obtuse. Like, what's so hard to understand? When I was a kid I watched a lot of IWW. Now, looking back as a 25 year old man I realize that a lot of IWW was quite bad. You keep making variations of the same argument: "they were young and inexperienced, give them a break". And I keep telling you I don't care. A bad product is a bad product. End of.

I’m kinda over this debate, I just think it’s ridiculous to slate inexperienced people as bad and discredit a whole product because there were some elements that weren’t up to scratch with a world that’s grown and evolved massively in the years since. It’s kinda like going to an LOI match and giving out because they’re not as good as Messi, you’re judging them at a grade they’re not at and that’s something you knew making that judgement. So it just sounds like you just want to call something bad.

leggo wrote: »

I’m kinda over this debate, I just think it’s ridiculous to slate inexperienced people as bad and discredit a whole product because there were some elements that weren’t up to scratch with a world that’s grown and evolved massively in the years since. It’s kinda like going to an LOI match and giving out because they’re not as good as Messi, you’re judging them at a grade they’re not at and that’s something you knew making that judgement. So it just sounds like you just want to call something bad.

Oh give over. This is a weak excuse and you wouldn't accept it for any other wrestling promotion. In fact, you wouldn't accept it in general. Imagine if you went to the cinema and a disclaimer came up that said "the crew was very inexperienced so please be nice". I shouldn't need to explain that that's not how the world works. IWW wanted a seat at the big boy's table. They routinely referred to themselves as one of the best companies in the world. Therefore they get judged on their own merits. Just like every other wrestling company.

leggo wrote: »

Actually people can use context to judge something and I gave you an example (the LOI) in the post you quoted. Same reason if I went to the cinema and saw Avengers and it was awful, I’d be pretty angry: they have great actors, a crazy budget, a big studio behind them giving them every resources to put forth a great movies. If I stuck on True Movies at 2am or went to see an arthouse indie movie made on a shoestring, I wouldn’t go online going mental about how the script was a bit naff or the actors weren’t Oscar-worthy. What did I expect?! Yet you seem to be oblivious to the idea of context.

In comparing IWW to OTT, you’re essentially comparing Power Rangers to Sopranos. One was a smaller kids show using young actors to give children something to watch, the other is a show aimed at adults, bankrolled by HBO using veteran actors. And your exact situation is pretty much apeing that comparison: “I watched Power Rangers as a child but rewatched it there and the acting is awful compared to shows I like today!” Yeah. You’ve grown up. You’re watching products for grown ups now with people more experienced to give older people what they’re looking for. Of course it’s better. But to do a Sopranos people have to go through a show like Power Rangers to learn their trade. You seem to be the only person struggling with this very simple concept.

Your conflating resources/budget with quality. And as the mid 2000s are often referred to as the golden age of indy wrestling, when various low budget indys were touted as being better than WWE, it should be clear that "low budget" and "quality" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Again, you can cry foul about how unfair it is for me to compare IWW to something like ROH. And once again, I don't care. I, as a fan and a customer, have no choice but to judge everything on its own merits. There was a lot of great indy wrestling in 2006 and I don't feel IWW measured up.

Your line about "it's for kids, what do you expect?" seems pretty desperate to me. I hear it a lot and it's a complete fallacy that does a massive disservice to the thing you're trying to defend. First of all, I don't actually believe that IWW was solely for kids. If it was, why did they book a match like AJ Styles VS Christopher Daniels in a venue like the SFX theatre? But let's pretend it was just for kids. So what? There's a difference between being a good kids show and a bad kids show. Hell, some of my favorite shows of all time have been for kids: 'Avatar the Last Airbender', 'Gravity Falls' etc... For a wrestling example, think of Chikara. They were a company that was massively aimed at kids. They had comedy and goofy characters and Chikara was awesome in the mid 2000s. If your really going for the "its for kids" defense then fine. It was a bad kids show.

leggo wrote: »

You’re saying you’re judging it on its own merits but then comparing it to ROH because...halls? No, they’re completely different companies, the only thing they had in common was “not WWE”!

ROH then would be more like an OTT: a super-indie who ran regular spot shows aimed at adults who’ll travel bringing in name talent from feeder promotions then selling that on DVD (since they were owned originally by RF Video). IWW tried that with their first couple shows then shifted to become a local feeder promotion, more comparable to Fight Factory, in growing their own talent and using imports on bigger shows to help build them, then selling by touring the main roster for family shows. If you’re going to judge them on their merits, judge them on that, because that’s their merit, I was there like. If someone compared OTT and Fight Factory today they’d be rightly ridiculed because it’s two completely different companies with different sets of objectives.

And on that merit they were extremely successful and massively overachieved, to the point you now compare them to ROH (even unfavourably) when they should’ve had no right to be! You don’t have to like them, it’s totally your prerogative to have your own taste. But to say they were bad is just false and only highlights your own misunderstanding. If a person is new in a job, are they a bad worker or just new? If a feeder company explodes and runs national tours and a TV show before they’re ready...are they bad or overachieving? We made you believe we were in the same ballpark as ROH when we were all going broke trying to make it work like!

Let's get something straight. I'm not comparing IWW just to ROH. I'm comparing it to the entirety of indy wrestling. Because, like I've said a hundred times now, that's only fair. Why should IWW get special treatment? Everything gets judged on its own merits. And as we've established "budget ≠ quality". After all Chikara started off much the same way as IWW, with one talented guy and a handful of trainees. In fact, Chikara had arguably even less resources than IWW but they went on to become a great product. IWW, in my opinion, did not.

Your analogy about a person being new at their job would only work if IWW went on to become good. But they didn't. They peaked in 05/06 (and even then IMO were still not particularly good) and went downhill from there. They lost their buzz, their talent, their TV show and by the end Mandrake was wrestling bad holiday camp watches with The Model.

And one other thing. When I say I'm comparing IWW to different indies, I'm only doing so on one criteria, sheer "quality". For example, I think 'Annie Hall' is as funny as 'Star Wars' is exciting. They're both equally good but for different reasons. In wrestling, I think Chikara was as good at presenting comedy as ROH was at presenting technical matches. Obviously, IWW was stylistically very different from ROH and Chikara but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been "good" or "as good" or "better" at whatever they presented. I guess the final point I'm trying to make is "IWW excelled in no particular area".

I'm frankly a little irritated that you would claim I have a "misunderstanding". Since this is probably the one wrestling conversation I do feel I'm qualified to weigh in on. I was in the thick of it during the mid 2000s Irish wrestling boom. I lived it and I remember it well. But Jesus I'm exhausted from this and you probably are as well. This debate has got to end so if you want to get a last word in go ahead.

That was a solid feud lads, a real 60 minute Broadway. Well done to both of you!

SquidLad wrote: »

The angle where Darren banned me from the IWW forum to set the match up was great too.

There it is! I knew there'd be something, there's always something! Class twist. :pac:

Ha ha ha what a carny!!! That’s gas Sirsok. You going into business for yourself and him getting p*ssed about it even though he walked out. Sounds like a Russo storyline.

If anyone wants to continue talking about old Irish shows what about those fake wwe tribute shows. Bad. So bad :pac:

Some old Welsh guy with fake tan sprayed all over him pretending to be the rock with an eyebrow painted on him to boot :pac:

If we're gonna keep talking about old Irish graps, there are some questions that have been rattling around in my head for the last decade or so.

Does anyone know:

1) If it's true that Simon Rocheford got the money to fund IWW because a keg of beer fell on him?

2) What exactly happened between Mark Burns and Vid Vain?

3) What was up with that press release where IWW blamed Sheamus' publicist for his leaving the company?

And you wonder why you where banned multiple times from the iww forum squidward????? 

I actually have footage of the chaos of the missing ring event in Cork

beakerjoe wrote: »

Ah the posters looked so bad, even Kain (think thats how he was spelt) didnt look convincing.

Yeah. They were very bad shows. Obviously geared towards very young kids but still :pac:

If I recall correctly the late Lee Butler wrestled as Mankind on one of them.