Which Style Do you like best?

Magnolia_Fan

I was just curious as to what wrestling fans other than myself liked nowadays...I perfer the old stuff, I preffered when there was gimmicks, though I feel it could be a big mistake if they try to revert back to it now...It was fine when it was Wrestling but now that its Sports Entertainment I'm not so sure. Plus the hardcore wrestling brought about a whole new legion of fans who will prefer seeing HHH or Guerrero cut themselves to pieces rather than see a good wrestling match..Cornette said it..Theres only so much the hardcore wrestlers can do, it won't be too long till they run out of ideas and when that happens shooting star Presses to the outside will be as common as a hip toss and won't evoke a reaction...Then What?

Anyway whats everyone elses thoughts?

Edgedogg

I think thats the reason for Vince toning down the WWE.

Most of what we see now is wrestling or there abouts, thats why he thinks he's on the right track in giving Benoit and Eddie the belts. Which he is, but there's so many other things that need fixing besides the Main Event.

The Toning down I think is good because we get to see more wrestling plus when we do see something Extreme or hardcore, people enjoy it more.

Ph3n0m

I personally find any aspect of wrestling exciting, except for one major factor - bad, and downright cheesy angles - I mean look at Kane/Lita/hardy - am I the only one sick of Lita's bad acting, Hardy looking awkward kissing his real-life gf in front of everyone or Kane lost in a mire of stupidity?

savemejebus

i think Kane losing the mask was the worst move ever, and is it just me or does he have eyebrow implants?

Exit

There's a place in the business for all kinds of wrestling. If you look all the way back, wrestling started as a carny type event where a show was put on to entertain the people. It's the same today, there's technical wrestling for those who like that kind of thing, hardcore for others, high flying for others, semi-naked women for others, soap storylines for others, and so on... Generally it evolves and what's popular now won't necessarily be popular in 10-20 years time.

The wrestling business is just a big spectacle but usually you get people like me who love the technical side and look down on everything else. At least that's how I used to be. I see now that everything has its place. I might not enjoy all aspects of wrestling today, but I accept it.

oneofakind32

i agree with exit. The budiness is changing constantly. I think theres a differance between acrobatic move e.g. shooting star presses ect and hardcore pile driver
An acrobatic move is one which looks spectacular but is run of mill for some one with gymnastic experience.
Hardcore move is one which is less contoleable then other and can offen result in injury eg pile drivers.
As for happens when shooting star presses to the outside become common. They start doing hip tosses agian because they are less comon. Theres only so many moves you can do in a match and theres thousands of moves out there and the number is growing. I think move variation is just as important as the moves them selvs

gimmick

With guys like Kurt, Eddie, Benoit, Haas, Benjamin, Matt Hardy etc, its not ab bad move to be a WRESTLING show is it?

Lets be fair, which would you prefer see? A hradcore match with Albert and Show, or a straight one fall match between Eddie and Benoit? Easy enough choice there I would think.

yami308

Personnally, I'm sick & tired of the story line/ gimmick part of wrestling. Granted, interviews would suck without them, but I think the ECW-style matches are the greatest. Very few rules, run-ins,high risk moves, and AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (that's something you won't see in WWE). Also, I like the Lucha Libre-style, but sometimes I don't understand it. I don't speak Spanish very well so I can't catch the rules. Like during a tag match, when one guy slides out or gets thrown out of the ring, his partner just comes in with no tag. Why? I just don't get it. Japanese high-fliers also get me glued to the TV. That's excellent watching.

Magnolia_Fan

I would agree...only I don't really like the aspect of a match in ECW starting with a chesse grater to the forehead...it was more of a blood lust...Less so then Pro Pain which made it good plus they did have gimmicks by the way in fact they were all gimmicks almost and though it was subtle they did have story lines too....RVD is a gimmick...Raven..gimmick...Dudley..gimmick...Balls Mahoney..gimmick..Sabu..Gimmick etc.

yami308

You've got a point. The whole "sport" is one big gimmick! But when it goes over the top and is just there to blatantly fill time (i.e., anything that involves Stephanie McMahon) that's when it gets old real fast. Subtlety is the key to good storytelling in wrestling, I think. And blood lust doesn't make a good show, either, but when you get creative (and it does usually involve weapons), that's when promoters sell tickets and get fans to watch. Case in point, Tommy Dreamer, while not the easiest sell in the business, was called "The Innovator of Violence" for a reason. He didn't always bleed, but he was one of the more respected members of ECW and he sold tickets, not to mention his technical skills are pretty solid. Also, New Jack, even though his gimmick completely focused on violence, I'd watch just to see what he'd bring to the ring with him each time. But that's just my opinion.

yami308

By the way, if you couldn't tell I'm a huge ECW fan. I think they had some of the most talented, technical wrestlers in the US. They would even have some of the world's best wrestlers appear for a time. Plus, if you look at the histories of WWE "superstars", you'd see that a lot of them had put in some time with ECW.

Exit

Heh, how can you say 'sublety is the key in wrestling' and then go on to talk about how great ECW was?

yami308

With the exception of "The Network", they really didn't have that many outlandish storylines. Unless I'm forgetting some (it's been known to happen). Plus I said "subtlety is the key to good storytelling", and I can't think of any (with the exception of the NWO , DX and other "gang-type" scenarios) over-the-top storylines that really sold. Am I forgetting anything?
Besides ECW relied on the wrestlers and their mat skills, they didn't try to hinge the next month or 2 of shows on a story line that might or might not work. Unlike other promotions (or do I need to bring up Katie Vick or the failed DDP/ Undertaker feud?).

Exit

Ah, I misread what you said. I thought you meant storytelling in the ring rather than actual storylines. From what I've seen of ECW, there wasn't much storytelling in the ring, just random spots being put on all over the place.

Magnolia_Fan

Your right for the most part Exit....but in favour of ECW the top wrestlers there were good story tellers in the ring...Foley and Funks matches for example...Sabu and Funk, RVD wasn't too bad other wrestlers like Lance Storm and Justin Credible aswell...Oh and Almost all WWE wreslters have stinted in ECW except the newer guys...Foley,Austin,Storm,Jerricho,All Dudleys, Rhyno etc etc. Except noticably Rock and H.H.H...who both coincidentally want to become Movie stars...maybe not so coincidental lol Go to ECW and don't just get butchered at every 2nd P.P.V get butchered every week...Plus Rock only had 2 weeks of training to become a wrestler and H.H.H is married to the bosses daughter

gimmick

Originally posted by yami308
Besides ECW relied on the wrestlers and their mat skills,

I am a bit of a fan of ECW, but i dont think you could ever say that many relied on Mat skills. There was very few matches werent spotfests.

I know there were alot of good wrestlers there, some future wwf champs, Jericho, Benoit, Foley, but without resorting to high spots they were not going to get far in ECW. You could never accuse Balls Mahoney, or Big Sal of being good wrestlers. thye worked because of their high spots. (If any of that even makes sense?)