Unpopular wrestling opinions

DM_7

They certainly need more variety in matches and performers. But they don't want it.

It would be easy to have a cruiserweight or x division where you know you will see something differant from the rest of the show.

They could have a technical wrestler like Bret Hart who will work the opponent down to set up the sharp shooter.

They could have lots of people with different styles but they don't want it. They end up with loads of people doing the same stuff. Superkicks in most matches, always see someone flying over the top rope, DDT is just another move these days.

Cesaro has one of the best moves around with the flying uppercut but he actually shouldn't be flying like that every week. That should be left to the likes of Neville or something he does rarely.

The fact the matches are so similar just makes them even more missable.

leggo

briany wrote: »

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.

See you're assuming I mean that every match should be a 1-minute squash, perhaps my own fault for not explaining clearly. What I'm saying is that right now wrestling follows a basic structure of 3, 8, 12, 15, 20 and 30 minute matches, and you wrestle the style of match based on your length. You can generally guess how long a match will be on a PPV based on its build and importance, and thus guess the style and know the rhythm and beats it'll follow. That style is in place for a reason, because it works, but there's so much wrestling on now the audience is well used to it and knows what to expect. They need to evolve one way or another, this is one suggestion. Have matches end suddenly in the middle with a finisher hit out of nowhere, give matches that would usually be mid card filler 15-20 and let them work and steal the show, don't feel that your duty bound to give a main event 30 mins just because it's a main event. Matches can still be great and value for money without needing to be long. That's like saying a movie isn't great unless it's 3 hours. It's the substance and story that counts, not the length. Or at least that's what my girlfriend tells me.

***Before I state my "Unpopular wrestling opinions" I just want to say I'm not an independent or Japanese wrestling watcher. If i judge someone I only go by their WWE run***

I've been really disappointed by Finn Balor so far in NXT/WWE.

Reading reports about him before he arrived (because he was Irish and a certain former poster on here going on about him so much) I thought he would be amazing.

Promos haven't been great and not one of his matches so far have I said that was an amazing match.

SureYWouldntYa

I'd be the same. He's been a bit bland, in the ring and on the mic.

I loved his entrance for Takeovers, at the start. That London one with Jack the ripper and the chainsaw was terrible.

The best things he does now is the constant teasing of him debuting, it's a running joke at this stage.

sky88

Bret Hart was every bit of an egotistical you know what as shawn just in a different ways.

the screwjob was deserved I was listening to a Scott hall interview and he said what would stu Hart do if s wrestler said the same to him and I'm sure bret would react differently.

I always find it weird how when I was younger I thought Vince was in the wrong but as I've got older I feel Vince was in the right . anyone else feel different about it since it happened?

Monokne

Obviously, Bret Hart has a big ego. Obviously, so do Shawn and Vince.

It's ok to view all these things as true but still evaluate what happened on merit and see that Vince was in the wrong.

sky88

Monokne wrote: »

Obviously, Bret Hart has a big ego. Obviously, so do Shawn and Vince.

It's ok to view all these things as true but still evaluate what happened on merit and see that Vince was in the wrong.

but bret not giving up the belt in Canada us just wrong to me like you can't do it. if shawn never wanted to lose in texas it would have been redicolous.

I know bret didn't want to lose to hbk with good reason but if he was a company man like he always said he was he needed to lose the belt to shawn.

B.A._Baracus

I agree with the points made on finn balor.
If I am to be brutally honest that whole 'The Demon' thing is.... sad. He either isn't invested in it or doesn't have the charisma to pull it off.

Ive seen his matches in njpw and he is one of the best in the world. Can't take that away from him. But I think his talents lay in the ring and not on the mic.

But his nxt matches aren't exactly mind-blowing either.

SureYWouldntYa

The demon thing hasn't been handled correctly imo.

He should have been losing a feud, and had to bring it out as a last resort to get past x. The way it's done now is for every "big" match, including Tyler Breeze.

All it is now is it being called the demon. All he does is come out and move to the beat of his theme, in a dancy sort of way.

There's no change in style when he's the demon, minus a few minutes against Joe in Dallas when he sort of hulked up.

It could be so much more and have so more depth, but it's there at the moment. It's just paint and dancing.

B.A._Baracus

You're absolutely right.
It's no secret that The Demon is WWE's take on Keiji Mutoh/The Great Muta. But it just does not work. It just feels disconnected between seeing him as regular Finn Balor then, as you say for the "Big" matches, The Demon... just a bit of face paint.

A Rogue Hobo

I've said it multiple times, the Demon is crap because he wrestles no differently from how Balor normally wrestles. Plus they let him use it for basically every Takeover now which cheapens it imo, especially when the design more often than not is the same or similar.

I really enjoyed the cage match with Joe but he's definitely slowed down in the ring. But then at the same time he's right to slow down. He's almost 35 years old and has yet to make his main roster debut, he has to be careful about the risks he takes. The last thing he needs is to get a year long lay off due to injury, eating into what you imagine is quite limited time as it is on the main roster.

leggo

To be fair, I think Finn has been let grow stale in NXT because they've kept him there and at the top of the card for too long. The Joe feud never really clicked like they hoped, it had none of the heat that Zayn/Neville and Zayn/Owens did, but they had nothing else ready so they just kept it as their main event feud for like 8-9 months when the substance of the feud really didn't deserve it. I wouldn't judge his performance on it. For me, his promos have been surprisingly serviceable, not dissimilar to Daniel Bryan in that you're never going to confuse him for Ric Flair, but he's held his own on the mic for someone who's seen as weaker in that respect. It's made me confident for him headed up to the main roster. Look at how well AJ has done for example. He's also not necessarily a promo guy, but if you keep his storylines fresh enough and protect him to only speaking when necessary, he can hold up his end of the bargain.

I think it's one of those things were you have to separate how someone has been used from their ability and performance. They needed a main event babyface, they kept him even when his character had played out in that role. If he was on the main roster, he'd have been able to turn heel and freshen up, but because NXT was thin he was allowed to grow a bit stale. He hasn't had a career-defining match in WWE yet (though I loved his Takeover match with Neville and the ladder match with KO personally), but his matches haven't been bad either. Classics are so often a case of timing and clicking. I mean, again, compare him to AJ: you could've had the same concerns when he was put against Jericho (matches were grand but not classics because there wasn't the bit of creative bite there to sink your teeth into; as is often the case with Jericho feuds because we know he's on a temporary run to get others over by association), but give him a hot feud against Reigns with the crowd as it was and he was flying because the talent is there to do so, and I'm sure it'll be the same vs Cena too. You could also look at Punk as an example - he was performing well individually before WWE learned how to use him, and when they did and gave him stuff to get stuck into he started to wrestle constant classics. Finn's wrestling hasn't been poor or anything close. Just the stars haven't aligned for him to have a classic yet. Wait for Brooklyn, I have a feeling, if you've seen where it's going, that will change.

In terms of the Demon, I'm fine with it just being something cool and extra he does for big matches. I never really saw it as anything but an equivalent to Mysterio getting cool gear for bigger matches. It's supposed to just be a cool stunt for GIFs, kinda like The Undertaker's entrances for WrestleMania. That's all it was on the indies too when everyone shared it and thought it was the coolest thing ever. The chainsaw thing just didn't work, but whatever that happens, but I still find myself looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. I loved the cage entrance, Jack the Ripper, and his first Takeover entrance as the Demon is one of the most iconic entrances in WWE in years. If you remember, it blew everyone away at the time.

Not trying to be an apologist or anything, I see what people are saying like, I just don't think any of the concerns will affect him when he's called up. On balance, Finn has had a better NXT run than most, he was just allowed grow a little stale and over-exposed doing the same thing for slightly too long. That's more a comment on NXT taking a dip creatively when they got a new head writer though, rather than on Finn himself. The raw materials are still all there for WWE to avail of when he's called up.

DEFTLEFTHAND

sky88 wrote: »

Bret Hart was every bit of an egotistical you know what as shawn just in a different ways.

the screwjob was deserved I was listening to a Scott hall interview and he said what would stu Hart do if s wrestler said the same to him and I'm sure bret would react differently.

I always find it weird how when I was younger I thought Vince was in the wrong but as I've got older I feel Vince was in the right . anyone else feel different about it since it happened?

I'm the same, great wrestler obviously but comes across as a bit of an arrogant jerk who takes himself way too seriously.

Vince owns that belt and he had every right to get it off Hart by any means necessary when he refused to do business.

Chain Smoker

Unless I'm wrong, Bret was 100% willing to drop the belt to Shawn, but not in Canada. He was willing to do it at the next PPV or any Raw? He had creative control for his final 30 days written into his contract and had no problem putting someone over on the way out but felt (and I'd say rightly) that losing in front of a Canadian crowd didn't serve to do anything other than bury him a bit. If Vince was stupid enough to include such a stipulation in the contract, he had no right at all to take it off Hart. No one shows WCW any sympathy for all their creative control contract debacles so why should Vince be let off the hook.
Wait, here: http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/clarification-of-events-leading-to-montreal-and-brets-refusal-to-lose-in-cananda.3085719/ Number 4


Bret's a collossal egomaniac, I'm sure he's insufferable, but he does not strike me as someone who'd deliberately lie or do something where he may be left unable to consider himself as 100% morally right.
Vince was thrown into a difficult spot but it was Shawn's doing, it was Hunter's doing, Bret was doing everything by the book.

I'd far rather deal with Bret than Shawn to this day. A bitter begrudging bastard but I've no doubt that he'd be straight about everything. His whole approach to taking someone down is by being Mr Right.
Whereas Shawn... outstanding in ring performer and all, but every story about the guy in the 90s makes him sound like the most insufferable dickhead you'd ever meet. Don't believe his born again stuff has any purpose beyond allowing him to absolve himself of being such a thundering c*nt either.

...and if you're being swayed by arguments from the mouth of Scott Hall :rolleyes:

CSF

Bret Hart's recent remarks about Seth Rollins certainly hasn't warmed me to him. I do think that the current generation of the upper card seem to be better rounded people. Not perfect obviously, but the generation of egotistical maniacs doesn't seem half as bad.

DEFTLEFTHAND

He had reasonable creative control and Hart wasn't being reasonable. Vince wanted the title change at the PPV not on Raw which is perfectly understandable.

Monokne

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Unless I'm wrong, Bret was 100% willing to drop the belt to Shawn, but not in Canada. He was willing to do it at the next PPV or any Raw? He had creative control for his final 30 days written into his contract and had no problem putting someone over on the way out but felt (and I'd say rightly) that losing in front of a Canadian crowd didn't serve to do anything other than bury him a bit. If Vince was stupid enough to include such a stipulation in the contract, he had no right at all to take it off Hart. No one shows WCW any sympathy for all their creative control contract debacles so why should Vince be let off the hook.
Wait, here: http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/clarification-of-events-leading-to-montreal-and-brets-refusal-to-lose-in-cananda.3085719/ Number 4


Bret's a collossal egomaniac, I'm sure he's insufferable, but he does not strike me as someone who'd deliberately lie or do something where he may be left unable to consider himself as 100% morally right.
Vince was thrown into a difficult spot but it was Shawn's doing, it was Hunter's doing, Bret was doing everything by the book.

I'd far rather deal with Bret than Shawn to this day. A bitter begrudging bastard but I've no doubt that he'd be straight about everything. His whole approach to taking someone down is by being Mr Right.
Whereas Shawn... outstanding in ring performer and all, but every story about the guy in the 90s makes him sound like the most insufferable dickhead you'd ever meet. Don't believe his born again stuff has any purpose beyond allowing him to absolve himself of being such a thundering c*nt either.

...and if you're being swayed by arguments from the mouth of Scott Hall :rolleyes:

This is spot on.

Unfortunately, when I read a lot of things on boards these days it strikes me that there is a less discerning fanbase, one which basically watches WWE Network and accepts WWE's version of history as fact or close to it. It feels as though arguing the rights and wrongs of Montreal with most people here would be redundant. They probably don't know about the 4 way in Springfield when Bret was going to drop the belt in the ring, for example. Or they've decided that they've heard the bull**** "Bret was going to show up on Nitro" line enough times that as completely absurd as it is is, they buy it.

The long and short of it: Bret had creative control and didn't agree to the scenario put to him. They had 4 more weeks to get the title off him. No one put a gun to Vince's head. He broke the contract because he wanted to.

Nody

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He had reasonable creative control and Hart wasn't being reasonable. Vince wanted the title change at the PPV not on Raw which is perfectly understandable.

Did you read his contract? His contract stated he had full control over the booking for the last 30 days and Vince is captured lying on TV as well over it (see the documentary) and had offered to lose it on the next PPV as well. Secondly it was not about losing in Canada (he offered to lose in Toronto) but not losing in his home town... And I'm not even going to go in on how Vince screwed him on the contract and refused to pay what he had contractually agreed to pay to him (which was one of the main reasons he left for WCW because Vince told him he'd not get paid anything even if he was contracted for it).

Monokne

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He had reasonable creative control and Hart wasn't being reasonable. Vince wanted the title change at the PPV not on Raw which is perfectly understandable.

You just don't know your history and it's ok to admit that.

They had at one point agreed a scenario where Bret dropped the title on December 7th in a fourway with Michaels, Shamrock and Undertaker.

ricero

Just read brets book this past week (which is a must read for any wrestling fan) ans after years of thinking vince did the right thing i now know that bret was screwed big time

DEFTLEFTHAND

Monokne wrote: »

You just don't know your history and it's ok to admit that.

They had at one point agreed a scenario where Bret dropped the title on December 7th in a fourway with Michaels, Shamrock and Undertaker.

Ok Fam I'm not a wrestling historian or expert. Thank you for broadening my knowledge.

I began watching pro wrestling 20 years ago this year. My brother and I watched Cartoon Network on Sky analogue which would turn into TNT at 9pm each night. On Friday nights instead of movies they'd rerun Nitro.

So I'm not some WWE Network mark. I've a deep interest in pro wrestling and I always like to learn more.

LeeJM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Ok Fam I'm not a wrestling historian or expert. Thank you for broadening my knowledge.

I began watching pro wrestling 20 years ago this year. My brother and I watched Cartoon Network on Sky analogue which would turn into TNT at 9pm each night. On Friday nights instead of movies they'd rerun Nitro.

So I'm not some WWE Network mark. I've a deep interest in pro wrestling and I always like to learn more.

Spent many a Friday night myself flicking between Raw on Sky Sports and Nitro on TNT, the Irish version of the Monday night wars. ECW was on Bravo on like a Tuesday or Wednesday too but dont think it ever had a set time.

demanufactured

LeeJM wrote: »

Spent many a Friday night myself flicking between Raw on Sky Sports and Nitro on TNT, the Irish version of the Monday night wars. ECW was on Bravo on like a Tuesday or Wednesday too but dont think it ever had a set time.

I didn't know we even got ECW here...

smilerf

I knew very few people with sky when I was young.
It was renting wrestling video and wcw on itv/tnt for me

LeeJM

demanufactured wrote: »

I didn't know we even got ECW here...

Yea defo in 99 and 00 we did. Probably part of 98 too. Was impossible to catch though sometimes on at midnight, sometimes on at 4 am and the day was always changing.

smilerf wrote: »

I knew very few people with sky when I was young.
It was renting wrestling video and wcw on itv/tnt for me

Ah yea Bill Watts era WCW on ITV on a Saturday afternoon followed by Movies, Games and Reviews. Also I think The Dinosaurs would be on just before WCW, loved that show :pac:

Monokne

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Ok Fam I'm not a wrestling historian or expert. Thank you for broadening my knowledge.

I began watching pro wrestling 20 years ago this year. My brother and I watched Cartoon Network on Sky analogue which would turn into TNT at 9pm each night. On Friday nights instead of movies they'd rerun Nitro.

So I'm not some WWE Network mark. I've a deep interest in pro wrestling and I always like to learn more.

You're welcome brother.

Just because I don't think you know the history of the topic at hand in depth, doesn't mean I think you are a 'WWE Network mark'. That is why I worded it in the way I did. Essentially unless you read the Torch and/or the Observer in late 1997 or have gone back to do so since, there are details that have been lost to the airbrushing and simplification of the story over time.

leggo

I used to watch Raw on a Friday night with the 'lines', as we called them, i.e. the scrambled channels for the poor kids like me who couldn't afford Sky. Then I'd live for Saturday morning when I could watch the highlights for real on Livewire. My auntie with Sky would tape PPVs and I'd get them like two weeks later and go through school yelling at people not to tell me what happened. I didn't know myself when SmackDown came along on Sky One in 1999.

Then we finally got Sky in 2002. Sadly that coincided with WWE's product taking a severe dip (the necrophilia era) and me getting the Internet and learning through wrestling forums that the stuff I loved was, in fact, crap. I'll never forget the wars I used to have detailing how Bull Buchanan would be champion within a year or two. Anyone who watched WWF Metal (and then Superstars the next day too - took me a while to figure out it was the same matches with different commentators) as much as I did knew the score.

Monokne

I'm from the era before that. WWF Blast Off, Superstars (the original), Action Zone, All-American Wrestling etc.

I always looked at METAL with derision.

leggo

I've sticker books and so on from like 1994 but can't remember specifics, just really random fleeting memories like 1-2-3 Kid and Bob Holly winning the tag titles. Then in 97-98 got back into it in a big way.

beakerjoe

Ah the old scrambled cablelink channels, I watched (listened rather) many a PPV, Raw or Premier League match on those channels. I used to love teh odd free weekend where we got the movies or sports channel for free, it felt like winning the lotto.

The taped PPVs from may mate that had Sky Movies did me in the early to mid 90s, and I watched all I could in between. Superstars and Wrestling Challenge was always awesome, along with the odd Saturday Night main event. Then Action Zone on Sky One in the 94/95 was neat at the time (I remember being hyped for Shawn and Diesel versus eh Headshrinkers, what a time to be alive).

WWF Mania with Todd Pettengil went and in its place was Live Wire, which kept me firmly up to date with WWFs side of the Monday Night wars on Saturday Mornings just like Leggo recalled, the night after trying to listen to Sky Sports one coverage of raw on the scramble channel. I remember i had SS1 and SS2 on scrambled channels but if Raw was on SS3 *which was new at the time) you were screwed.

Soon Channel 4 got Heat and 4 PPVs a year with add breaks. Ill never forget the big X on their maiden broadcast thanks to May Young.

Kids with the Network are spoilt, they didnt pay their dues like us 80's 90s kids.

Good times.