Unpopular wrestling opinions

Vision of Disorder

the groutch wrote: »

Damien Sandow needs to be pushed again, and this time to the sky.
Everything he touches turns to gold.

I would have presumed that to be a popular opinion? I agree anyway!

Chain Smoker

Stereomaniac wrote: »

This is going to be a really unpopular opinion, I'd say. I think The Undertaker deserved more of a run with the WWE Championship. If they can give it to Dwayne Johnson & Brock Lesnar in 2013 and 2014, then there's no reason why he couldn't have gotten it for a final run.

Have a look at his last run there in... 2009? If ever there was a run that deserved more criticism than it got, it was that one, pretty much put a giant full-stop on Smackdown ever being interesting again.

Stereomaniac

I wasn't watching regularly at the time. I know there's a lot of backlash against him at the moment but having watched the majority of his career, I find it hard not to feel a little bit sentimental.

ShagNastii

I'd be wholly against "thank you" or "deserved" titled runs. It has happened a few times now and they generally fall flat and suck a certain credibility out of whatever titles it relates to.

It is great to see a legend, an under appreciated talent, a company guy get his/her moment in the sun but passed the novelty of a new champ they never really shine.

I know you'd find many who would argue cases, like Kane for instance. A great pity he never got a solid run with the world belt but F off if you think for a second he should/could get a title.

Vision of Disorder

That thing Ambrose does, where he delicately and gently falls carefully onto the middle rope and then pops back out, a couple of times a match... one of the cringiest, stupidest looking moves I've seen in a wrestling ring this side of the year 2000. I've been meaning to share that for ages and have literally paused the match I'm watching now to finally do so.

gnfnrhead

Vision of Disorder wrote: »

That thing Ambrose does, where he delicately and gently falls carefully onto the middle rope and then pops back out, a couple of times a match... one of the cringiest, stupidest looking moves I've seen in a wrestling ring this side of the year 2000. I've been meaning to share that for ages and have literally paused the match I'm watching now to finally do so.

It's a tribute to Nigel McGuinness who made the move look vicious and intentional. Ambrose just looks awkward by falling into it every time. Kyle O'Reilly does a decent version but nobody has ever matched Nigel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwFHB6BNwNM

Kolido

Vision of Disorder wrote: »

That thing Ambrose does, where he delicately and gently falls carefully onto the middle rope and then pops back out, a couple of times a match... one of the cringiest, stupidest looking moves I've seen in a wrestling ring this side of the year 2000. I've been meaning to share that for ages and have literally paused the match I'm watching now to finally do so.

100% agree, I also find Orton's DDT from the middle rope cringey, it's too obvious his opponent has to assist in making it work.

A Brad Maddox Guy

The first time Ambrose did it it looked brilliant. Think it was on Rollins who sold the crap out of it after Ambrose made a perfect connection with a move genuinely "out of nowhere". Every single one since has been awful, looked forced and I wish he'd stop.

Stereomaniac

When he did it on the show after the one where he first did it, it was pretty clear the move was going to be run into the ground. It really doesn't look natural any time he does it lately.

Vision of Disorder

I retract then. It's clearly not an unpopular opinion at all.

the groutch

Talking of moves being run into the ground, Neville's Red Arrow is used far too much.
It's been stopped/telegraphed/kicked out of so much that he's using it 3 or four times in some matches, and when he hits it it's just so "meh".
He should have another finisher and save that for PPVs.

Stereomaniac

So many peoples' moves are used too much. It goes back to what Paul Heyman and Steve Austin were talking about, that moves and finishes haven't been as protected in recent years. For all the people who say Cena is over-protected, a lot of people kicked out of his finisher.

Palo Alto

Owens kicking out of the super AA was the stupidest thing I've seen this year.

Stereomaniac

Yeah, exactly. Then people complain about Kevin Owens being supposedly buried in recent months.

Scavenger XIII

I like the off-the-ropes clothesline but I agree it's waaaaaaaay overused to the point where it just seems silly and unbelievable that he would go for it in most of those situations.

Same for the Red Arrow, it seems like Neville is being booked to come across as a spot monkey who just does one big flippy thing when we know he's got so much more in his repertoire.

leggo

In defence of those moves - and I totally get and agree with what people are saying, it is dumb when you apply logic to it - WWE view their wrestlers as 'brands' and thus condition the audience to expect a formula from their matches (which on TV often just serve as ads unless they get 12-20 mins). And that does actually work. It's what conditions us to anticipate and pop for moves when performed in big matches, it makes near falls effective etc. And it's why you can feel somewhat disjointed and out-of-sync with a live crowd's energy when you watch indie matches on TV. Like I said, I'd share people's frustrations, in a vacuum these things are dumb...but that's why it's done.

briany

ShagNastii wrote: »

Yip I'll also echo disdain for Taker and his MMA stuff. You are right, it's nothing to get worked up about but it does make Taker look stupid. Sort of reminds me of a funny line from the Hardy Bucks-

Buzz: "Did you see the guy in the gym in town. He wears all TapOut gear"

Boo: *deadly seriously* "Jeeeeeesus only the toughest of bucks wear TapOut shirts".

The Hells Gate is by far one of the biggest turds ever in terms of submissions used believably in wrestling.

Without the MMA stuff, Taker's left with a very limited moveset. He can't do the dive over the ropes anymore, nor that great jumping leg drop, and Old School is overplayed. I'd actually like to see him add more MMA stuff to his moveset - grappling, striking and ground-based moves. It tells a good story of his character, that he can't do many spectacular moves anymore and is forced, instead, to get his opponent on the mat and work them over.

Vision of Disorder

leggo wrote: »

It's what conditions us to anticipate and pop for moves when performed in big matches, it makes near falls effective etc.

Against that though, 99.9% of the time (bar the odd roll up basically) we know that no cover that wasn't preceded by a designated 'finishing move' will result in a pin. So it cuts both ways.

briany

I'd like to see more unpredictable pinfalls, but the problem would be that if Ambrose were pinned off a running legdrop, rather than a 'designated' finisher, the entire IWC would be up in arms crying, 'burial', and that he was being made to look weak.

jaykhunter

briany wrote: »

I'd like to see more unpredictable pinfalls, but the problem would be that if Ambrose were pinned off a running legdrop, rather than a 'designated' finisher, the entire IWC would be up in arms crying, 'burial', and that he was being made to look weak.

This would make more matches much more interesting immediately, if the finish could come from anywhere in the match

CastorTroy

jaykhunter wrote: »

This would make more matches much more interesting immediately, if the finish could come from anywhere in the match

Like a rollup?

Stereomaniac

Rollup City Baby

leggo

briany wrote: »

I'd like to see more unpredictable pinfalls, but the problem would be that if Ambrose were pinned off a running legdrop, rather than a 'designated' finisher, the entire IWC would be up in arms crying, 'burial', and that he was being made to look weak.

One thing I think wrestling is crying out for is unpredictable match times. Like take a lesson from MMA: some of the most memorable fights in history have lasted a minute. Not every main event has to be a 30-minute epic, fans are already way too used to this formula and it makes it tougher on guys involved to get reactions.

This would require a HUGE effort to re-train and condition fans' expectations, otherwise they'd **** on it (imagine dropping a few grand to travel to WrestleMania only to have the main event end in seconds unexpectedly without knowing that that could be a 'thing'), but it could be done. Think back to when Lesnar and Cena worked a different style main event at SummerSlam. That was fantastic because it usurped fans' expectations for how a match like this should go.

Another lesson I think WWE could learn from MMA is that not every guy needs to be on every PPV card, and every title doesn't need to be defended. I've been saying for years that 6x match cards with well-built storylines is all any PPV needs. You may say "well they have 3-hours of Raw to fill a week and are struggling already", but why does every storyline needs to reach its apex at the same time? Build, say, Cena/Lesnar on Raw as normal but have the match announced for the PPV after the next one. Then build up a grudge match or US Title match or whatever as the main event. You keep WrestleMania, SummerSlam, the Rumble or Survivor Series as the only PPVs where EVERYONE is on them and that maintains their mystique, whereas Money In The Bank is about the guys fighting for the briefcase, HIAC is about the two guys who most want to kill each other in a blood feud etc. The Network era is the time to do this. So just let's sit back now and hope someone with stroke is reading boards...

ERG89

MMA is real tho when a Cain Velasquez knocks a guy out its over & everyone knows it. One of the best aspects of wrestling is that it's based on design. Just cause this generation seem over reliant on false finishes doesn't mean you have to change to aping a more realistic style. In wrestling a short match is done to make one guy look unstoppable and the other look like a jobber.
Sheamus beating Bryan in 20 seconds was memorable in the wrong way tbh. I don't buy the crap that they did it to make Bryan the underdog slant either especially the way they booked him after it. They had a perfectly good match the next month but wwe gave a lot of matches more time even when they didn't need it.
Imagine a wwe ppv ending at 2:30 or Raw ending early? Ok the latter would be heaven as it's unbearable to watch now unless you have far too much time on your hands.
The latter bit about making cards more special by removing names from smaller ones is unthinkable because of the lack of names now. This is a company trying to find someone new to take on Lesnar now.

leggo

ERG89 wrote: »

MMA is real tho when a Cain Velasquez knocks a guy out its over & everyone knows it. One of the best aspects of wrestling is that it's based on design. Just cause this generation seem over reliant on false finishes doesn't mean you have to change to aping a more realistic style. In wrestling a short match is done to make one guy look unstoppable and the other look like a jobber.
Sheamus beating Bryan in 20 seconds was memorable in the wrong way tbh. I don't buy the crap that they did it to make Bryan the underdog slant either especially the way they booked him after it. They had a perfectly good match the next month but wwe gave a lot of matches more time even when they didn't need it.
Imagine a wwe ppv ending at 2:30 or Raw ending early? Ok the latter would be heaven as it's unbearable to watch now unless you have far too much time on your hands.

See you're seeing things too literally, I'm not saying to just start jobbing people out immediately. Look at how it is in MMA: Rousey got her arse kicked by Holly Holm, but does that make Rousey a jobber now? No, she could come back and win the rematch and everyone would be happy to accept it. Right now a guy losing in a short match in WWE means he's been jobbed out, but that's because that's how they've conditioned us to think about when that happens. You only see it that way because WWE train you to think that way: it's how they translate their own booking into long-term consequence. But, for example, if Orton caught someone with an RKO out of nowhere early into the match and won, you'd sell that as 'hey the other guy just got caught' rather than he got jobbed out. Eventually fans become conditioned to think 'finishers can happen anytime and end matches', which gives guys so much room to work with outside of the current formula, which we're all way too used to now.

So take the Owens/Cena feud as an example, by their third match it was so difficult for them to get reactions to false finishes because fans didn't see finishers as finishes. After the first match the subsequent rematches felt somewhat flat by comparison and the lads had to work twice as hard to get back to those peak reactions of the original. They were great matches and the guys worked their arses off, but their struggles are symptomatic of a style (probably started with the classic Austin/Rock matches) that has gone a bit too far and something needs to give soon. For wrestlers' health more than anything, kinda like when people got too used to hardcore matches and people needed to start putting themselves in actual danger to get fans excited. You'll still see this effect on the indie scene where some people still work that style, fans are so moreish now because we've seen it all. The only way to change that is a dramatic shift in style.

It's a case of re-training and conditioning fans' expectations, which happens all the time as wrestling evolves. The last time it happened in WWE was Triple H vs Shawn Michaels on Raw in late 2003 when they wrestled the style we're used to today, which is completely different to what you'll see if you look back at the Attitude Era. You'd say Lesnar/Cena at SummerSlam was another evolution if they ever followed up on it, but they haven't really.

As far as shows ending early...well there's a simple answer to that: wrestling is still fixed. The running order is still controlled.

The latter bit about making cards more special by removing names from smaller ones is unthinkable because of the lack of names now. This is a company trying to find someone new to take on Lesnar now.

That's how it is right now at this second...because the roster is decimated with injuries. I'm not saying do this starting from TLC. The WWE roster is actually quite deep when people are healthy. The problem when it was deep before was that you had this ridiculously deep midcard full of under-developed guys. You couldn't do it then either because it would've been ridiculous to have Sheamus/Ambrose, say, main event a PPV when both are kinda languishing doing nothing. But what you'll start seeing now, and we're already seeing it, with the injury crisis is that WWE will be forced to develop those characters out of sheer necessity. So when people start returning and others start getting called up from NXT and getting pushed, you'll all of a sudden have a very healthy pool of developed talent. Then it's absolutely doable.

Stereomaniac

UFC fans are guilty of becoming fickle marks like each and every one of us at the best of times here. I don't mean that to cause offence to anyone, but it's true. Talking to people about Holm vs. Rousey in the aftermath and the same guys who were in complete awe of Ronda Rousey a few days before the fight were then suddenly saying there was no way she could have beaten Holly Holm and that she's washed up (in terms of UFC) now, etc. etc. I couldn't believe how quickly and blatantly some people seemed to jump on the bandwagon. If Rousey were to fight any of the other people she has beaten in the past, people would probably jump right on her bandwagon again, if she said she was gunning for her rematch and said she was starting from scratch again. I know this isn't the MMA forum, and I don't know as much about the sport nearly as much as some of the other posters here. But we're a fickle bunch, wrestling viewers. We tend to believe people are being buried if they lose matches quickly or if they drop out of the main event scene. I'm sure Zack Ryder or Fandango would love to be getting buried in that fashion. Being taken off of television is being buried. There's no such thing as jobbers really anymore. WWE have arrived at a point where in the space of a few minutes someone can be re-elevated to pay per view status just because it suits them. Look at Jack Swagger angling for a United States Championship match the last few weeks. Even look at the way he basically followed the same formula when feuding with Rusev. These guys returning from seemingly obscurity and getting a few wins and going against the champion make the sport look more legitimate for me. For sure, it would be great if every so often they pulled an upset out as well, like that thing that happened in boxing recently. But it's probably a long road to go before people don't kick up if they end up seeing what's become referred to as a squash match. I think anything that differs from the norm can only be good for wrestling, like Cena vs. Lesnar, and similar.

ERG89

leggo wrote: »

See you're seeing things too literally, I'm not saying to just start jobbing people out immediately. Look at how it is in MMA: Rousey got her arse kicked by Holly Holm, but does that make Rousey a jobber now? No, she could come back and win the rematch and everyone would be happy to accept it. Right now a guy losing in a short match in WWE means he's been jobbed out, but that's because that's how they've conditioned us to think about when that happens. You only see it that way because WWE train you to think that way: it's how they translate their own booking into long-term consequence. But, for example, if Orton caught someone with an RKO out of nowhere early into the match and won, you'd sell that as 'hey the other guy just got caught' rather than he got jobbed out. Eventually fans become conditioned to think 'finishers can happen anytime and end matches', which gives guys so much room to work with outside of the current formula, which we're all way too used to now.

So take the Owens/Cena feud as an example, by their third match it was so difficult for them to get reactions to false finishes because fans didn't see finishers as finishes. After the first match the subsequent rematches felt somewhat flat by comparison and the lads had to work twice as hard to get back to those peak reactions of the original. They were great matches and the guys worked their arses off, but their struggles are symptomatic of a style (probably started with the classic Austin/Rock matches) that has gone a bit too far and something needs to give soon. For wrestlers' health more than anything, kinda like when people got too used to hardcore matches and people needed to start putting themselves in actual danger to get fans excited. You'll still see this effect on the indie scene where some people still work that style, fans are so moreish now because we've seen it all. The only way to change that is a dramatic shift in style.

It's a case of re-training and conditioning fans' expectations, which happens all the time as wrestling evolves. The last time it happened in WWE was Triple H vs Shawn Michaels on Raw in late 2003 when they wrestled the style we're used to today, which is completely different to what you'll see if you look back at the Attitude Era. You'd say Lesnar/Cena at SummerSlam was another evolution if they ever followed up on it, but they haven't really.

As far as shows ending early...well there's a simple answer to that: wrestling is still fixed. The running order is still controlled.



That's how it is right now at this second...because the roster is decimated with injuries. I'm not saying do this starting from TLC. The WWE roster is actually quite deep when people are healthy. The problem when it was deep before was that you had this ridiculously deep midcard full of under-developed guys. You couldn't do it then either because it would've been ridiculous to have Sheamus/Ambrose, say, main event a PPV when both are kinda languishing doing nothing. But what you'll start seeing now, and we're already seeing it, with the injury crisis is that WWE will be forced to develop those characters out of sheer necessity. So when people start returning and others start getting called up from NXT and getting pushed, you'll all of a sudden have a very healthy pool of developed talent. Then it's absolutely doable.

The talent in wwe or nxt need personalities or character to prosper and become stars. They fail at this so badly. Talent can only take you so far. I don't see much in WWE now that I can say he's ready to put the rocket on. I wouldn't say the roster is deep either. They rely on the same names for the big matches.
Wwe don't train how I see a squash watching a booked sport like Professional Wrestling has. Short matches are avoided to keep the audiences happy. It's not sport where it's unpredictable and a game would be over by half time. There is a comfort knowing you know what you are getting in a wrestling match between two big names. Talent now just rely on near falls on finishers & no terrible selling. If they are kept short to avoid a squash everyone would be let down if it wasn't an injury or something like that. Btw the Lesnar match was to put Brock over as a monster after 18 months of poor booking. The biggest shock was who it was he was against than the match itself.

Stereomaniac wrote: »

UFC fans are guilty of becoming fickle marks like each and every one of us at the best of times here. I don't mean that to cause offence to anyone, but it's true. Talking to people about Holm vs. Rousey in the aftermath and the same guys who were in complete awe of Ronda Rousey a few days before the fight were then suddenly saying there was no way she could have beaten Holly Holm and that she's washed up (in terms of UFC) now, etc.

Bar Robin Black who did a superb pre fight breakdown nobody gave Holm a chance as Ronda won 3 fights on the spin in under a minute. Don't know where people said Ronda was washed up but in hindsight it reflects badly on her that the plan was her going shooting two movies after it. Her gameplan was so bad that night she called how Holm would beat her weeks before it & said she'd have to avoid it. Fans had turned on her a bit too as Miesha Tate said many people were sick of having Rousey front and centre of everything. Nobody was more annoyed she lost than the ufc management were.

Stereomaniac

Without veering too off the wrestling map here, it makes sense that Ronda Rousey would be front and centre of everything because she was being so dominant and was the champion of her division. It wouldn't have made sense to have one of the people she beat being pushed to the front in terms of branding and media appearances. What could arguably be more of an issue is Conor McGregor becoming the centre of his division before even facing the champion. So I agree with you there, UFC management can manufacture things. As I said above, I don't know a great deal about UFC but to me it seems that a lot of people have become very vocal in criticising her since she has lost, whereas before the fight no one was willing to put their neck on the line and back Holm. Anyway, maybe we'll get to see her in a WWE ring if she decides she doesn't want to go back and fight in UFC again. Personally I'd like to see Rousey vs. Holm again though.

briany

leggo wrote: »

One thing I think wrestling is crying out for is unpredictable match times. Like take a lesson from MMA: some of the most memorable fights in history have lasted a minute. Not every main event has to be a 30-minute epic, fans are already way too used to this formula and it makes it tougher on guys involved to get reactions.

This would require a HUGE effort to re-train and condition fans' expectations, otherwise they'd **** on it (imagine dropping a few grand to travel to WrestleMania only to have the main event end in seconds unexpectedly without knowing that that could be a 'thing'), but it could be done. Think back to when Lesnar and Cena worked a different style main event at SummerSlam. That was fantastic because it usurped fans' expectations for how a match like this should go.

Another lesson I think WWE could learn from MMA is that not every guy needs to be on every PPV card, and every title doesn't need to be defended. I've been saying for years that 6x match cards with well-built storylines is all any PPV needs. You may say "well they have 3-hours of Raw to fill a week and are struggling already", but why does every storyline needs to reach its apex at the same time? Build, say, Cena/Lesnar on Raw as normal but have the match announced for the PPV after the next one. Then build up a grudge match or US Title match or whatever as the main event. You keep WrestleMania, SummerSlam, the Rumble or Survivor Series as the only PPVs where EVERYONE is on them and that maintains their mystique, whereas Money In The Bank is about the guys fighting for the briefcase, HIAC is about the two guys who most want to kill each other in a blood feud etc. The Network era is the time to do this. So just let's sit back now and hope someone with stroke is reading boards...

What happens to the guy beaten in a minute becomes the question here. For MMA and boxing guys being beaten comprehensively in a minute or so often spells the end of their career, at least at the top. You can have a guy get beaten in a minute in wrestling as well, in the title picture. It's relatively rare but it does happen, but it's never the end of the feud unless you want to bury the guy getting beat. IMO, wrestling does not need look to MMA or boxing on how to tell stories, only to its own past. Wrestling is a show, not a sport and not quite subject to the same constraints as boxing or MMA. Therefore other considerations come into play when thinking about how to build a card, which performers to put on and who gets top billing and how long matches go. If MMA promoters and boxing promoters could magically control the length of time their matches went on for, you can bet they'd opt for 'longer' in many cases, because they like money.

Palo Alto

It's an awful idea.