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

[ampulator]

I do not trust either one as always the "truth" is in the middle imho. Read both Controversy and Death of WCW and think the truth is in the middle. Tried finding another source on how Ross was treated by WCW but could not find one, so if anyone knows one I would love to have it.

There in lies your problem. The truth doesn't always lie in middle. Does it in many cases? Yes. Not always. I'll give an easy example.

 

Altough people (and some still) believed the Earth was flat, mathematics, science, and exploration proved the Earth was round.

 

The old belief was the Earth was flat, while the new belief was the Earth was round. The middle between would likely be "people can believe want they want."

 

Guess what? the Earth being flat is wrong, as is the so-called "middle" would be.

[Zeel1]

There in lies your problem. The truth doesn't always lie in middle. Does it in many cases? Yes. Not always. I'll give an easy example.

 

Altough people (and some still) believed the Earth was flat, mathematics, science, and exploration proved the Earth was round.

 

The old belief was the Earth was flat, while the new belief was the Earth was round. The middle between would likely be "people can believe want they want."

 

Guess what? the Earth being flat is wrong, as is the so-called "middle" would be.

 

Nah, dude, the middle there would be like..I don't know, a triangle?

 

Still wrong, but y'know..

[Hyde Hill]

There in lies your problem. The truth doesn't always lie in middle. Does it in many cases? Yes. Not always. I'll give an easy example.

 

Altough people (and some still) believed the Earth was flat, mathematics, science, and exploration proved the Earth was round.

 

The old belief was the Earth was flat, while the new belief was the Earth was round. The middle between would likely be "people can believe want they want."

 

Guess what? the Earth being flat is wrong, as is the so-called "middle" would be.

 

Lolz in these type of cases involving perception of people the "truth" is often in the middle. The world being round is scientificly testable etc. Please also see the "" and the word often. I just want both sides of the story

[PeterHilton]

I do not trust either one as always the "truth" is in the middle imho. Read both Controversy and Death of WCW and think the truth is in the middle. Tried finding another source on how Ross was treated by WCW but could not find one, so if anyone knows one I would love to have it.

 

Really? REALLY? While I know Death of WCW was very markish at times, there are lots and lots of hard numbers in there.

 

And there's has never been any situation at any time where Eric has accepted any blame, so it's very hard for me to accept ANYTHING he says.

 

It's literally impossible to think that there was any decision that WCW made where he had no say whatsoever; and definitely not the ones that just so happened to go in the tank.

 

Death of WCW wasn't completely right. But there's no way the truth is 'in the middle.' It's probably more like 70-30 against EB

[Hyde Hill]

Really? REALLY? While I know Death of WCW was very markish at times, there are lots and lots of hard numbers in there.

 

And there's has never been any situation at any time where Eric has accepted any blame, so it's very hard for me to accept ANYTHING he says.

 

It's literally impossible to think that there was any decision that WCW made where he had no say whatsoever; and definitely not the ones that just so happened to go in the tank.

 

Death of WCW wasn't completely right. But there's no way the truth is 'in the middle.' It's probably more like 70-30 against EB

 

Yep but even some of those hard numbers are soft numbers so to speak. Not 100 percent correct. And yes not saying exactly in the middle.

[PeterHilton]

Yep but even some of those hard numbers are soft numbers so to speak. Not 100 percent correct. And yes not saying exactly in the middle.

 

We're going off topic ..but what numbers? the house show results? the buy rates? the ratings? Because all the figures came from the annual reports after the company was sold.

[Hyde Hill]

More the income and expenditure etc, not so much those. BTW where can I find those annual reports? And how did Alvarez and Reynolds get their hands on them?

 

Anyway nevermind as this is turning into a WCW discussion again. I just wanted info on the supposed mistreatment of Ross by WCW.

[Hyde Hill]

Lance Cade making some poignant comments about WWE's drug policy:

 

http://whosslammingwho.podOmatic.com/entry/2010-05-06T08_44_46-07_00

 

Starts at 29.40.

[ampulator]

Is it Kenny Bolin's podcast? I'm not too keen on the guy...

[Hyde Hill]

Is it Kenny Bolin's podcast? I'm not too keen on the guy...

 

Yeah me neither but the stuff Cade had to say was interesting.

[ampulator]

The thing is, Kenny smacks me the wrong way that Eric Bischoff does - an opportunist that knows what the truth is, but doesn't really care what it is. Like used-car salesman. Unfortunately, like Cornette, I'm allergic to bull****.

 

Paul Heyman lies. But not for the same reasons. Paul lies because he's doing it for the greater good... so, his intentions are not a lie, even his words are.

[Hyde Hill]

The thing is, Kenny smacks me the wrong way that Eric Bischoff does - an opportunist that knows what the truth is, but doesn't really care what it is. Like used-car salesman. Unfortunately, like Cornette, I'm allergic to bull****.

 

Paul Heyman lies. But not for the same reasons. Paul lies because he's doing it for the greater good... so, his intentions are not a lie, even his words are.

 

Hehe yeah I can definitely see that, but the stuff Cade said was pretty interesting just unfortunate that it was on Bolin's show.

[The Final Countdown]

Highlight of Smackdown: Striker making a Prince Nana reference.

[Zeel1]

http://www.thewrestlingfan.com/sdrant.html

 

As with last week, my recap of SD! - with an NSFW warning. Probably a bigger one than usual, thanks to the little running joke I picked for this particular one..

[LoganRodzen]

I take offense to what Triple H said in a recent interview about WWE's product:

 

... Triple H addressing the company's decision to make its product more family-friendly. "The Game" said he wouldn't want his kids to see the antics he pulled off during "The Attitude Era."

 

"I've got young kids," he said. "Years ago, we were what we were, and I certainly wouldn't want to have my young kids watch that product. We've evolved."

 

So how about all of us who watched during the attitude era and were under the age of 10 at the time? I was and I don't think I've turned into a crappy person because of it. I went to RAW in Dec. '97 in Portland - the only TV WWE has ever done here in Maine - and I was 8 or 9 at the time.

 

I remember this in great detail because it was the first time my older brother - whose 8 years older than me - wanted to bring me along to wrestling with him. He probably didn't, my folks must have gave him cash to babysit me but that's besides the point. It was the night Austin refused to defend the IC title, McMahon stripped him and awarded it to The Rock. A week later he threw it into the river. Everyone should remember that segment.

 

I think WWE toning down the product is an old discussion, but HHH saying that sort of irked me the wrong way.

[crownsy]

I take offense to what Triple H said in a recent interview about WWE's product:

 

 

 

So how about all of us who watched during the attitude era and were under the age of 10 at the time? I was and I don't think I've turned into a crappy person because of it. I went to RAW in Dec. '97 in Portland - the only TV WWE has ever done here in Maine - and I was 8 or 9 at the time.

 

I remember this in great detail because it was the first time my older brother - whose 8 years older than me - wanted to bring me along to wrestling with him. He probably didn't, my folks must have gave him cash to babysit me but that's besides the point. It was the night Austin refused to defend the IC title, McMahon stripped him and awarded it to The Rock. A week later he threw it into the river. Everyone should remember that segment.

 

I think WWE toning down the product is an old discussion, but HHH saying that sort of irked me the wrong way.

 

 

i see your point and generally agree that it's a bit hypocritical of him, but at the same time, as someone with a pair of younger brothers who watch now (9 and 12) I would not want them watching some of the more extreme parts of the attitude era.

 

I know it's cliche, but the katie vick and ass kissing scenes come to mind as things i would kind of cringe at them watching.

 

I'd have no problem with them watching a great austin promo, but some of the racier stuff...I can see H's point.

[lazorbeak]

I take offense to what Triple H said in a recent interview about WWE's product:

 

 

 

So how about all of us who watched during the attitude era and were under the age of 10 at the time? I was and I don't think I've turned into a crappy person because of it. I went to RAW in Dec. '97 in Portland - the only TV WWE has ever done here in Maine - and I was 8 or 9 at the time.

 

I remember this in great detail because it was the first time my older brother - whose 8 years older than me - wanted to bring me along to wrestling with him. He probably didn't, my folks must have gave him cash to babysit me but that's besides the point. It was the night Austin refused to defend the IC title, McMahon stripped him and awarded it to The Rock. A week later he threw it into the river. Everyone should remember that segment.

 

I think WWE toning down the product is an old discussion, but HHH saying that sort of irked me the wrong way.

 

Where is he saying that you will 'turn out crappy'? I'm not sure how it's hypocritical either, since he didn't have kids then and does now?

 

Also your example of a memorable segment is still completely fine within WWE' current product.

 

Things we've lost: Val Venis and "I chopee your pee-pee." Local escorts and models being called "Ho's." Jerry Lawler shouting "puppies!" and whistling every ten seconds a woman is on-screen. "Mr. Ass," DX acting like frat-boys.

 

Oh the humanity! I see where "PG" has negative connotations but really all we're losing is childish garbage that appeals to the lowest common denominator. It really has nothing to do with the actual wrestling. I mean TNA has great wrestlers but still wastes time forcing knockouts to strip and having Orlando Jordan pour lotion on himself and grown men calling each other "bitches" as though it was an edgy insult. Is that really what anyone wants? When creativity is stifled, that's a whole other problem, but I don't miss shock for shock garbage. And considering the benefits of being a more respectable company, I'm sure WWE doesn't miss it either.

[LucianCarter]

Fact is WWE's in-ring style has changed though. It's lower impact and safer now. Big Show doesn't do half the slams he did before. There are fewer big spots and bigger moves are saved mostly for finishers.

 

This probably has more to do with genuine care for the workers' health than the change to PG.

[Prophet]

The only thing about the PG rating that truly irritates me is the whole stance on blood. When they grayed out replays where someone bled, that was one thing, but to now stop a match because someone has a trickle of blood ... it baffles me.

 

They spent so long trying to play up that this is a "contact event" to avoid words like sport and competition, and in instances of contact, sometimes people bleed. And if you want to eliminate purposeful blading, that's your call, and I can understand why you'd want to do that, but why did the match with Jack Swagger a couple of weeks ago need to be stopped? He wasn't gushing blood by any stretch. I can't make heads or tails of it.

[lazorbeak]

Fact is WWE's in-ring style has changed though. It's lower impact and safer now. Big Show doesn't do half the slams he did before. There are fewer big spots and bigger moves are saved mostly for finishers.

 

This probably has more to do with genuine care for the workers' health than the change to PG.

 

Yeah I mean that's not the rating that's the intensity of the product which was almost necessitated by a bunch of guys literally breaking their neck on high impact spots. WCW in the early 90's was physically intense but was still rated PG. In fact, I think WCW was PG for nearly all of its run.

 

I actually don't mind the stoppage for blood, because in legit sports, when people bleed, something is done about it. Even a sport like boxing has breaks for the cut man to stop bleeding. In sports where blood is less common like basketball, you can't be on the floor while bleeding until it's covered.

[djthefunkchris]

The only thing about the PG rating that truly irritates me is the whole stance on blood. When they grayed out replays where someone bled, that was one thing, but to now stop a match because someone has a trickle of blood ... it baffles me.

 

They spent so long trying to play up that this is a "contact event" to avoid words like sport and competition, and in instances of contact, sometimes people bleed. And if you want to eliminate purposeful blading, that's your call, and I can understand why you'd want to do that, but why did the match with Jack Swagger a couple of weeks ago need to be stopped? He wasn't gushing blood by any stretch. I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

IF PG things can't have blood, then it should be obvious why.

 

It's a way of saying "Hey, it's fake for gosh sakes"!

[Linsolv]

I actually don't mind the stoppage for blood, because in legit sports, when people bleed, something is done about it. Even a sport like boxing has breaks for the cut man to stop bleeding. In sports where blood is less common like basketball, you can't be on the floor while bleeding until it's covered.

 

Not true. If you watch any of the major MMA promotions, they either wait for the round to end, or they end the fight. The closest thing they have to a break to patch up blood is if someone's bleeding profusely and they call the medic in to ask if the fight should be stopped.

 

If WWE wants to claim that blood is bad, they should introduce a TKO rule like boxing/MMA, and stop holding "Extreme" events and matches. (Note: Obviously, WWE isn't real, and nobody thinks that these days, but would some vague attempt to seem realistic doesn't seem that bad, especially when it's giving a logical explanation for a change of policy...)

[LoganRodzen]

Where is he saying that you will 'turn out crappy'? I'm not sure how it's hypocritical either, since he didn't have kids then and does now?

 

Also your example of a memorable segment is still completely fine within WWE' current product.

 

Things we've lost: Val Venis and "I chopee your pee-pee." Local escorts and models being called "Ho's." Jerry Lawler shouting "puppies!" and whistling every ten seconds a woman is on-screen. "Mr. Ass," DX acting like frat-boys.

 

Oh the humanity! I see where "PG" has negative connotations but really all we're losing is childish garbage that appeals to the lowest common denominator. It really has nothing to do with the actual wrestling. I mean TNA has great wrestlers but still wastes time forcing knockouts to strip and having Orlando Jordan pour lotion on himself and grown men calling each other "bitches" as though it was an edgy insult. Is that really what anyone wants? When creativity is stifled, that's a whole other problem, but I don't miss shock for shock garbage. And considering the benefits of being a more respectable company, I'm sure WWE doesn't miss it either.

 

I didn't say that he said people 'would turn out crappy'. I simply said that I don't think I've turned out crappy from watching the low-brow stuff they used to do. I have a 6 year old nephew and 9 year old niece who have seen the stuff today and think it's boring. Its disappointing because it used to be something I looked forward to when I was a kid. Wrestling has definitely lost that.

 

I certainly wouldn't want them seeing the Katie Vick angle or any of that other garbage but that isn't really the Attitude Era I remember. I remember the blood, the high risk moves, titles actually meaning something, the crowd seemed interested, and every match had a good build up. It's a cartoon now.

 

I wasn't really using that as a 'shocking' memorable moment. It was just an example of me going to wrestling when I was a kid. If you want a real one... that same night DX was playing strip poker with Chyna in the ring and the Headbangers came down to put an end to it. It was just a funny segment. Wrestling still has its funny moments today though.

 

IF PG things can't have blood, then it should be obvious why.

 

It's a way of saying "Hey, it's fake for gosh sakes"!

 

I'm pretty sure PG can have blood. Pretty much all of the shows on USA Network are PG. The show White Collar on there - which is a cool show - had a ton of explosions and other crap. So have other shows on that channel. I really think it's just WWE refusing to allow it.

[Prophet]

IF PG things can't have blood, then it should be obvious why.

 

It's a way of saying "Hey, it's fake for gosh sakes"!

 

If that's the case, though, then if it's on Smackdown, they should edit the piece out that shows any semblance of blood, and on Raw, they should switch camera views. Instead they make a big deal out of stopping the match to show the bleedie being cleaned up, thus still showing blood. That's why it baffles me.

[lazorbeak]

I wasn't really using that as a 'shocking' memorable moment. It was just an example of me going to wrestling when I was a kid. If you want a real one... that same night DX was playing strip poker with Chyna in the ring and the Headbangers came down to put an end to it. It was just a funny segment. Wrestling still has its funny moments today though.

 

Yes I know you weren't but my point is the most memorable thing isn't a dick joke it's a well-written storyline where you believed Austin's character.

 

One of the other great moments from that original feud was where Austin cut a promo on the tron and said something about when Rock's beeper flashed 3:16 it meant he was in for an ass kicking. Then, when Rock's beeper went off (god was this really only 12 years ago???), his eyes bugged and he turned around into a beatdown from Austin. There's no reason that same bit couldn't work today in an altered form, and blaming the TV rating ignores the fact that the problem is the writing/booking, not the fact that it's rated PG.

 

One of the biggest problems in marketing things for "all ages" is people think it needs to suck, and that really isn't true. Believe it or not you can have a program that appeals to kids and adults, it just has to be well-done. People, even young people, want drama, and that's the biggest thing the Attitude era gave you that's missing today. Everything else was a sideshow distraction to break up what was essentially a year-long feud between Austin and McMahon. And in the meantime you had unpredictable title changes and what felt like 1 year's worth of story crammed into a few months.

 

The fact that wrestling doesn't have that any more has nothing to do with its rating.