Jump to content

PeterHilton

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,281

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by PeterHilton

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Well Peter you are ignoring the kind of cyclical effect that the WWE/F's dominance has had over the long amount of years as to what "wrestling" fans want as what the E gives is perceived as to be what wrestling is and vice versa. The only time they did a true change in formula and product was when they where realistically challenged.

     

    Chicken and the egg. Do wrestling fans expect it because the WWE is popular? Or is the WWE popular because they give fans what they want/expect?

     

    But I see what you mean.

     

    I also do not think that the most on these boards want or expect the WWE to become a niche entertainment product like let's say Firefly, but would like it to be more like say X-Files or at least Friends and not the Power Rangers Power Hour.

     

    Fair enough. But you may want to check and see how long those other shows ran as compared to how long Power Rangers was on tv.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    There is a difference between the IWC and here though hehe. Also if done over time would it cost that much more money to optimize their product? As they are paying mediocre writers and talent etc as is. And they have a structure which looks for better talent in all departments as is.

     

    Again..optimize is an opinion.

     

    But as to cost: it may not be much, but what are you gaining, really? The net fans who bitch sand complain generally tune in regardless and the current product keeps their fans happy.

     

    So if you added more wrestling and more "smart mark" storylines etc how many more fans will tune in?

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    If we decided to level the playing field a bit -- we put iMPACT on FOX and ROH on TBS (the number 2 and 3 prime time cable channels respectively), and gave them all equal advertising on their home channel, do I think WWE would be the far-and-away leader? No, I don't think it'd be that much of a rout. But would ROH be the far-and-away leader, now that's the question I think you're trying to say we're jumping to conclusions on. Still, it would be interesting.

     

    And WOW do I think you'd be wrong. Or at least incredibly disappointed.

     

    For all of it's criticisms, the E has been the industry standard since the early 80s.

     

    They took over the market during the Rock n Wrestling Era despite the fact that their in-ring product was honestly not that great for the most part..definitely not what net fans would look at today as being 'quality'

     

    The Attitude Era was based more on characters than ring work (ironically the WCW's greatest success was also based more on characters and names than ringwork, although they did a great job of blending things)

     

    And today, they draw far more fans than other companies despite formulaic and largely predictable matches.

     

    I think net fans should realize that - as crazy as it sounds - most people DON"T watch wrestling for the actual ..y'know...wrestling. There's a segment of the audience that does...but most people want the soap opera.

     

    That's it.

     

    Fair enough, Peter. The criticism that people seem to be making is that the WWE is engaging in lowest-common-denominator pandering, which I'd say isn't really true. TNA is, I'd say, but that's neither here nor there.

     

    EDIT: That said, if I were to say what I think that Vince would be best served doing, it'd be trying to bring back Kayfabe. If you have to make serious, sweeping changes to do it, fine. But wrestling fans shouldn't have to be in the closet because people who know it's fake think we're confused on the subject. This thing with Bryan has come dangerously close to being good for the business.

     

    Even if it IS pandering to the lowest common denominator, who cares? It works. They are a publicly traded company with a responsibility to generate profits, not to please wrestling nerds. ;)

     

    I think kayfabe is an impossible dream, especially with the advent of MMA.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I like the E, but the statement [itself], regardless of any implications that may or may not be true, is [true]. If you're happy with what you've got, you don't go looking to fix it. In fact, if you're unhappy with what you've got, a lot of people will deal with it.

     

    I'm not saying that the WWE is putting out a bad product. Light on the in-ring work, sometimes, when they put on 20 minutes of wrestling in a 2 hour show, but I like a lot of their guys enough that I can deal with that. But if the question is optimization, most people just don't care. The IWC, and especially the GDS forums, are predominantly people who want to optimize their product. The WWE is a business, and businesses are about costs vs. benefits. Quite simply, they wouldn't see a big benefit for making the perfect, wrestling-oriented show, and they would see a cost.

     

    However, to criticize the GDS users for being those optimizing types is equally unfair. It's in their (our) nature.

     

    The idea that the IWC is trying to optimize the product is a matter of opinion. For all we know using the ideas that most net fans put forth would drive away the majority of the E's viewers.

     

    And it's totally fair. Especially on these boards:

     

    I assume the people who post here play TEW. One of the basic tenets of the game is that your product needs to amtch the desires of your fans.

     

    If you criticize the WWE for creating a product which appeals to the majority of its viewing audience, then you are -metaphorically speaking - telling them to play the game wrong.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    While I agree with your main point. That's not always true. There are some things in wrestling that aren't just different, but are terrible.

     

    For example: A fan wanting unprotected chair shots in your wrestling isn't just wanting something different, they want something terrible.

     

    Well, yes, we could go point by point and find varying examples of just 'terrible.'

     

    But overall what I'm trying to say is that peope who hyperanalyze the WWE are missing the point. THEY are not the target audience.

     

    Net fans criticizing the WWE is the wrestling equivalent of listening to bubble gum pop music and criticizing the lyrics.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I'm very close to agreeing with the point.

     

    The majority of any group are perfectly happy with what they're given. Complacency's a real problem pretty much everywhere.

     

    The reason we're the internet wrestling community is because we're not part of that majority.

     

    By that logic everything that's popular is somehow of lesser quality becase the masses are all complacent and therefore not willing to chase after a higher standard of measure.

     

    I think net fans need to get over themselves for the most part. It's wrestling. To most people its mindless entertainment; brain candy.

     

    The WWE has been wildly successful for decades marketing themselves as just that.

     

    If you want something different that's your prerogative. But that's all you're looking for: something different. Not better. Not smarter. Not scientifically superior. Just different.

    The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Yeah, I know. I thought Trevor Murdoch was a hell of a worker, but I couldn't get behind him because of the gimmick.

     

    I liked him specifically because he was a Dick Murdoch knock off.

     

    Not to get too off topic ..but someone on these boards did an ECW relaunch diary with Murdoch that did a full on "foul mouthed, racist, ignorant" (EXTREME) redneck gimmick and it was f'n brilliant.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Yes, yes...only the intellectual giants that comprise the IWC can truly appreciate what great wrestling really is.

     

    The WWE caters to the masses which means it obviously must be completely and totally without merit, despite the roughly 40 years or so that it's dominated the industry.

     

    It's a wonder net fans don't dislocate their spines what with all the patting themselves on the back and saying how smart they are.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I never said they wouldn't get max money. I believe I said they would. But they're still not "max money" guys. I will agree with your second point though. By that logic though, Ben Gordon, Samuel Dalembert, and Charlie Villanueva are max deal guys (because of bad GMs, the market, etc). No way they should be. And that's my point. Dirk, Amar'e, Boozer, and Bosh will get max deals. Whether they should or not is a different story (talent-wise).

     

    All true. I guess what I was saying is that you have to set the talent debate aside when you discuss the FA market because SOMEONE will shell out that money.

     

    I don't know if I'd pay max money to Bosh because i've never seen him in a pressure situation. I don't think Joe Johnson is a max deal guy because he's a limited player and really doesn't add anything outside his offensive skills and i don't think those skills are good enough on their own to justify his contract.

     

    But they're both going to get max or close to max deals because GMs can't help themselves.

     

    So yeah..call them all max deal guys because that's what they're going to get paid.

     

    yeah I don't think either of us care, I believe we were just stating (to each other) who we believed are guys who deserve to get max deals.

     

    I have never understood why you come into conversations and start spewing out the mouth something we never mentioned. I believe we both know GM are going to be dumb and give out max deals to make sure they get their guy. CQ brought up the fact he believes the Max is meant for certain people and then I gave my list of who I thought were Max guys.

     

    Not for you to run in like a damn chicken with his head cut off talking about why guys get max deals.

     

    when Vince Carter gets a max deal and someone goes "What the hell were the Nets thinking" then you can come in with your knowledge

     

    Stop being so touchy every time someone disagrees with you.

     

    No sh*t it was your opinion on who deserves max contracts. I was just interjecting the fact about what those guys are going to get.

     

    If you want to have a private conversation use PMs. I don't need to get your permission to comment on a post in the message boards.

     

    PS David Lee is a guy actually "deserving'' of a max deal in the same line as Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Dirk, Carmelo, etc? REALLY? And I'm talking like a chicken with it's head cut off?

     

     

    CQI13

     

    He's not a max player guy (much like Boozer and Bosh). Still, they'll get their money somehow. His best bet would be a sign and trade, or he loses a bunch of money (the team you play for is the one that can give you the most money, right?). But then, Phoenix is stuck with someone equal or lesser than Amar'e for the same money.

     

    Letting him walk would upset Nash (they got this far this year, but I don't think he'd want to rebuild).

     

     

    What..... no way...... CQ already said what you felt you needed to comment on, very interesting.

     

    Or they could trade for a package of players; if Lebron re-signs the sign & trade to Clevleand would be very much alive.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    You guys are being retarded. The 'max deal' guys aren't 'max deals' because oif their true worth or value or whatever.

     

    it's because there are enough bad GMs out there that are willing to pay that amount that the market sustains thos econtracts.

     

    Whether you want to admit it or not, Bosh, Amare, Dirk, Boozer... they're all getting max deals.

     

    And besides..the max deal wannabe's who get paid aren't what kill a team..it's the cap space they waste on subpar guys.

     

    Giving big money to a Bosh won't kill you. But giving that money (or even close) to someone like Ben Gordon or Sam Dalembert or Allan Houston, that's murder.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    So it's alright to ignore luck? In my opinion, ignoring luck means the game might as well be played on a computer.

     

    I have no idea what you're talking about.

     

    "Luck" is just as indefinable and indeterminate a quality as you seem to think that "clutch" is. If you want people to take something as ambiguous and totally random as luck into the equation then you pretty much HAVE to talk about players who are clutch.

     

    After all, if you're going to ignore the fact that some players know how to clutch up, then the game might as well be played on a computer.

     

    EDIT: I want to clarify because i don't want to seem totally dismissive of youur opinion

     

    I've read lots of articles talking about how clutch is a myth in baseball; basically that if you take a large enough sample size then players perform under pressure situations in a way so similar to their performance under normal circumstances that the difference is negligible.

     

    Fine.

     

    but terms like 'clutch' and 'luck' and 'homefield advantage' and 'the will of the <insert sport here> Gods all fall under a very nebulous aspect of athletes and their psyche that really can't be measured or explained by stats. Can stats explain why some players always seem to perfrom best in the most importan games? Not really.

     

    They also can't explain why certain franchises always get the worst bounces, how certain players can fall ass backwards into great plays, or why athletes like Rick Ankiel or that catcher from Texas can go from totally normal to getting the yips and being able to perform the most rudimentary of acts.

     

    So yes...fans don't realize that 'cluth' has something to do with luck.

     

    But if you're going to take luck into the equation, then you have to also consider that some players are just more likely to succeed in trying circumstance (they're clutch!) regardless of the numbers.

     

    Anbd if you want to eliminate clutch, then do the same for luck, because that kind of thins is all sports voodoo that will never be fully explained by numbers alone. .

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Slag, you're definition is cluth is too connected to baseball (where it's easier to statistically recognize repetition in a player's performance ) and - as I stated earlier to the previous poster - ignores the emotional context of the game.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I'm not defending him. I just don't believe "clutch." If someone (or him) had made 2 free throws earlier, they wouldn't have been in that position.

     

    Hedo wasn't worth what he was asking. So you overpay just because he was good last year? He wanted more money, he got it. A good franchise doesn't overpay.

     

    Trust me, I put Vince in the same category as Tracy McGrady & Dirk Nowitzki, among others. Even in his prime, McGrady was not winning you a title.

     

    "Clutch doesn't exist" is one of those retarded things statisticians and sebermetrics geeks spout off. It's BS. So any two free throws at any point in a game are exactly the same regardless of game situation, time on the clock, playoff or regular season, etc?

     

    It completely ignore human nature and emotion and the way athletes react to their outside environment. It's a crap theory.

     

    And yes..for Orlando specifically Hedo was worth overpaying. He fit better with that roster and the gameplan that any other player in the FA market.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    But no one considers VC the BEST player on Orlando. I have the same feeling with Dirk Nowitzki. If he's the best you have, you're done.

     

    Put him alongside another superstar, and it's not on him.

     

    As for Orlando's other parts though, that's on their staff for not developing Howard's absolutely brutal offensive game. With his talent, no reason why he shouldn't be averaging 26pts. And not sure what he averages now, but again, with his talent, no way he should be scoring in single digits EVER.

     

    But going back to original discussion, the Magic basically cut off negotiations with Hedo to trade for Carter. And Hedo was their best option in the most crucial times last season.

     

    So whether or not Vince is their BEST player he was the guy they expected to play big come 'crunch time.' Which was a giant effing mistake.

     

    Because he is a spineless coward. :)

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    lol I doubt it. Every fan in Orlando would rather have a over-the-hill SG for 2 year instead of an overrated SF for 4

     

    Then you guys are idiots because this year you had a real chance to win it all with Hedo and a longer bench.

     

    As for the series, if Pau doesn't allow himself to be outmuscled and Artest guards Pierce with the ferocity that LA brought him in expecting, the Lakers should win in 6 or 7.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I'll admit Carter didn't deliver when they most needed him but he did step up at times at least and it got them this far. During those games when Howard didn't do jack, he was there to pick up the scraps. It's just too bad he's fairly inconsistent, and true it is he doesn't deserve that much dough, but you know.. veterans at that age.. likely to be overpaid.

     

    Huh? That was the most baffling "defense" of a player I've ever seen. He missed two free throws in a game the Magic absolutely had to win at the beginning of the series, was nowhere to be seen when Howard struggled, and "they got this far" is a poor response because they got ..yknow... FARTHER last year.

     

    It was a bad signing. Just bad. The Hedo/Rashard combo was so hard to deal with because both guys are odd match ups; one near seven foot jump shooter is hard to deal with much less two of them. And Hedo won how many games for them in last year's playoffs? Throw in that he's tougher and a much better ball handler than VC who could run pick n roll as the shot clock wound down and I literally have no clue how they thought Carter was an upgrade.

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Anything in particular you find "untrue"? I love being told what I say is false without any type of explanation. :)

     

    You said "he still has some yards in him" she said she thought it wasn't true, then explained how some guys have great seasons then fall off.

     

    How hard was that?

    The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    It is

     

    But the E trated him like a god. There's an entire wave of wrestling fans that have been programmed to think Ric was the greatest performer to work in the business. And maybe he was. But considering his 'prime' was over 20 years ago, he should be thanking the wrestling gods that the E gave him the 'legend' treatment since he came back because that's the reason he's even remotely relevant today.

×
×
  • Create New...