[Wrestling] Discussão Geral

[45roma]

Não percebo nas Indys, os gajos lutam pelo título sempre contra gajos diferentes :lol:

[Mister Master]

Ai já? :blink:

 

Como falho alguns episódios da ROH, não fazia ideia..

Lutou pelo título na passada semana, num show que levou o afastamento do Cornette do head booking.

 

Não percebo nas Indys, os gajos lutam pelo título sempre contra gajos diferentes :lol:

:mrgreen:

[Dolph Ziggler]

Ryback addressed oft-made comparisons between himself and Bill Goldberg during an interview published in the latest issue of WWE Magazine. He said they don't bother him and that "people are misinformed."

 

"People see a big guy with a shaved head who's intense, and they draw those comparisons," said Ryback. "I will say this: Goldberg did this for the money. He was never a fan of wrestling. I do this because I have a passion for it, and that's the biggest difference between Goldberg and me. I'm not here to make five million dollars and then walk away. I'm here for life. And, I firmly believe that I'm much better than he was in the ring. He was great, and I was a fan of his when I was younger. But, I feel I'm a better athlete and wrestler than Goldberg ever was, and people are going to see that over time."

[BDani]

Lutou pelo título na passada semana, num show que levou o afastamento do Cornette do head booking.

Consegues arranjar algo que explique o que se passou afinal +/- pormenorizadamente? Ou então faz tu um resumo, como queiras :mrgreen:

[htc]

O Cornette saiu do head booking da ROH? Bem, pode ser que comece a ver.

[Mister Master]

Consegues arranjar algo que explique o que se passou afinal +/- pormenorizadamente? Ou então faz tu um resumo, como queiras :mrgreen:

Lethal v Steen na hometown do Lethal, os pais do Lethal foram ver o evento na 1ª fila. Steen cospe na mãe do Lethal e ele fica todo super-guerreiro e toca a andar à porrada pelo recinto contra o Steen o que leva a DQ ou count out, wtv. Crowd grita bullshit e atira m*rda pro ringue. Em modo kayfabe, o Lethal atirou o Cornette a deslizar por uma mesa e o Jim tá out.

 

 

O Cornette saiu do head booking da ROH? Bem, pode ser que comece a ver.

Agora o head booker é o Delirious.

[45roma]

Na ROH há Count Out? Acho que não

[Mister Master]

Na ROH há Count Out? Acho que não

Há... a contagem é que é até 20 em vez de 10.

[45roma]

Há... a contagem é que é até 20 em vez de 10.

Ok

 

 

:lol:

[htc]

Lethal v Steen na hometown do Lethal, os pais do Lethal foram ver o evento na 1ª fila. Steen cospe na mãe do Lethal e ele fica todo super-guerreiro e toca a andar à porrada pelo recinto contra o Steen o que leva a DQ ou count out, wtv. Crowd grita bullshit e atira m*rda pro ringue. Em modo kayfabe, o Lethal atirou o Cornette a deslizar por uma mesa e o Jim tá out.

 

 

 

Agora o head booker é o Delirious.

O Cornette saiu por alguma coisa aconteceu que não era suposto? Ou porque o planeado era isto de forma a escrever a saída do Cornette?

 

Btw, é o Colin Delaney a gritar no fim?

[andriy pereplyotkin]

Bill Goldberg addressed Ryback's critical remarks in WWE Magazine regarding comparisons between the two wrestlers via Twitter Sunday.

In the interview, Ryback proclaimed to be a better wrestler and athlete than Goldberg ever was. Goldberg, who played in the National Football League, particularly took issue with the WWE Superstar proclaiming himself as the better athlete.

 

"Better athlete? Come on dude wake up.....," Goldberg tweeted.

 

In a remark re-tweeted by Goldberg, former WCW colleague Scotty Riggs stated, "Take it as a complement that the kid is unsuccessfully trying to outshine you!!"

 

Former WCW announcer Mark Madden also noted earlier, "Ryback thinks he's superior to @Goldberg? Ryback is a Xerox of a Xerox. Goldberg was an organic phenomenon. We'll see how Ryback winds up."

 

Goldberg wrote "Case closed!" in response to the following remark: "Ryback is a better athlete than @Goldberg? I don't remember seeing Ryback play in the NFL. #ShowSomeRespect."

[htc]

Ryback > Goldberg

 

Em termos físicos e de cardio. Em termos de talento é discutível.

[45roma]

Ryback > Goldberg

 

Em termos físicos e de cardio. Em termos de talento é discutível.

Ainda tens muito que ver do Ryback

[htc]

Precisamente. Mas acho que em termos de cardio e físico não há grande duvida. Em termos de o que é capaz de fazer dentro do ringue é discutível, ainda não vi nada de especial do Ryback mas também nunca vi nada de especial do Goldberg. :mrgreen:

[Mister Master]

O Cornette saiu por alguma coisa aconteceu que não era suposto? Ou porque o planeado era isto de forma a escrever a saída do Cornette?

 

Btw, é o Colin Delaney a gritar no fim?

Há largos meses que tem havido contestação em torno do Cornette. Tanto por parte de fãs, como de lutadores (a famosa shoot do Davey a dizer que o Cornette é outdated).

 

Não me importava nada de ver o Heyman a tomar conta disto. Não será ele a controlar a parte financeira (seria a SBG) e ele a par do Sapolsky são das melhores mentes criativas no wrestling atualmente, em termos de booking. Mas vamos lá ver como se safa o Delirious.

 

E não creio, pelo menos ele não está na ROH.

[htc]

O Sapolsky já é o pupilo do Heyman, os dois lá havia de ser engraçado.

[45roma]

 

Já fds :mrgreen:

[Mister Master]

O texto que se segue contêm divulgação dos resultados do PPV de ontem da TNA:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Want To Talk A Little Bit About Defining Moments

 

It's the night of Bound For Glory 2012 and Jeff Hardy won the world title from Austin Aries. That's not really news, nor is it really surprising based on the way the show has been built. However, in a comment about the show, someone said that Aries should have been able to continue with his reign and been given that defining win that his reign needed. This got me to thinking about another growing trend in wrestling which is going on a lot more in the WWE at this point, and it's not really work. Let's get to it.

 

At the moment, the top story in WWE is CM Punk vs. John Cena over the WWE Title. Going into Night of Champions, Cena said Punk needed to defend the title against him in Cena's hometown of Boston to define his legacy and cement himself as the top guy. The match wound up in a draw, and now the line is that Punk needs to beat Cena in the Cell to define his legacy and cement himself as the top guy.

 

Now that story makes sense: Punk didn't beat Cena (that time at least) and now he needs to do something else to end the feud with Cena. That's basic storytelling and makes perfect sense. HIAC is in I think two weeks and there's a good chance Punk is going to walk out of the Cell having pinned Cena (again). Let's say that happens and Punk wins as clean as you can in the WWE: so what?

 

That doesn't define Punk's reign. Punk's reign isn't over yet and we have no idea when it's going to end. It doesn't cement Punk as the top guy. Cena has lost to Punk already at three different PPVs in the last year and a half and Punk has never been the top guy over Cena. Punk can beat the entire roster in a single match while wearing roller skates and writing the great American novel, but it's not going to define his legacy.

 

Let's take a look back at history. The most famous reign of the last thirty years is Hogan's four year reign from 84 to 88. What is the defining moment of that reign? If there is one, it would be beating Andre, but there's a catch to that: Hogan already was the top guy and had been for years. However, we didn't know that was what was going to define it because no one knew what Hogan's reign was going to end.

 

At the end of the day, what defines Hogan's reign is what happened during his reign, which would be the rise of wrestling to the mainstream and the wrestling boom of the 80s. Those things happened when Hogan was on top of the company and was unquestionably the top star in the world. Let's look at the progression of Hogan's title reign with regards to major shows.

 

Hogan won the title in January of 1984. A little over a year later, there was The War To Settle The Score, which was a huge house show that celebrities attended and had a huge main event of Hogan vs. Piper. It was a HUGE show and one of the biggest moments in WWF history. Then about six weeks later, there was another show called Wrestlemania. This was even bigger and had even more celebrities and a bigger audience. Then two years after that, there was Wrestlemania III, which had over four times the audience of Wrestlemania I.

 

I could go on and on with countless examples of the same thing happening, but you get the point. Even after Wrestlemania III, there was no way to tell what else was coming for Hogan during his reign. The match against Andre wound up being the biggest single moment of his first title reign, but there was no way to know that until after he lost the belt. There's no way you can define a reign while it's still going on, as the stuff that happens one day might mean far less by comparison. At the end of the day, the War To Settle The Score was huge at the time, but the stuff it set up blow it away by comparison.

 

Going back to Punk and his reign now, there's another issue with his reign: no matter how many times he beats Cena, or how many times he beats anyone else, Punk simply is not a bigger star than John Cena. Cena has been the main star in the company for at least six years now (and again, the wins over HHH and Shawn at Wrestlemania didn't define a single thing about him or his reign. They were big wins over big opponents and that's it) and has been pushed like a major star.

 

On the other hand, Punk has been pushed as a big deal for roughly sixteen months with the majority of his push being based around the idea of him saying that he's better than Cena. Simply saying that he's better than Cena and giving him the title doesn't make him better. Punk's latest thing is talking about how many days he's been champion, but not only has Cena had more reigns, he held the title longer over a single reign. At the end of the day, Cena is a bigger deal that CM Punk.

 

Again let's look back at Hogan in the 80s. This is basically a carbon copy of the Mega Powers from the late 80s, with Cena and Punk originally being friends (by WWE's standards) in the early days of Punk being champion. Then Punk kept winning and holding onto the title, but no matter what he did or who he beat, he simply wasn't overtaking Cena in the eyes of the fans. Back in the 80s, Hogan was always a bigger star than Savage, Savage eventually went insane, and eventually Hogan and Savage had to have a match over it.

 

Did Savage's match with Hogan define his reign? Of course not. It ended the reign and Hogan was champion again for another year. Savage's reign is now defined as being important because it happened during Hulkamania. That's another quick thing: not every title reign has a defining moment. Often times the definition of the reign is determined as a whole instead of a single moment or match.

 

In short, this concept of saying a moment defines someone or a title reign or anything like that is nonsense. Simply saying that a match or a moment defines the champion's reign doesn't make it so. We have no idea of when the reign is going to end and it could be years to figure out what the reign means. We probably won't know what defines Punk's reign until after Punk's career is over, because we don't know how this reign will stack up to future reigns. He might have another reign that blows this out of the water in terms of length or quality, which is why you can't say that it defines anything about him.

 

The other thing to remember is that Punk flat out is not a bigger star than Cena and a single win over Cena isn't going to make him a bigger star. Like I said earlier, even if Punk wins over Cena, so what? He's done it before and it didn't make him a bigger star, so why would this make him a bigger star now? I get that it's storytelling, but it's a stupid thing to say because it doesn't make sense when you think about it. Punk isn't going to be the biggest star on the show, at least not while Cena is around, and that's all there is to it.

[htc]

O KB é um idiota quando quer. O que não quer dizer que na grande maioria das vezes não tenha razão. Neste caso, tem claramente.

Editado 15 Outubro 2012 por htc

[htc]

Por exemplo um momento que definiu uma carreira de um wrestler que saiu da WWE há dois anos atrás foi por ex. o First Blood do Undertaker com o Mr. Kennedy, foi aquele momento em que o Kennedy mais do que nunca parecia ter um grande potencial e conseguiu, mesmo que com ajuda do MVP, vencer o Undertaker e estabelecer-se como um futuro main-eventer.

 

Foi um grande momento que agora visto em retrospectiva foi o melhor dele na WWE mas que pouco ou nada significou para o futuro visto que a carreira dele na WWE cedo acabou.

[Mister Master]

The behind-the-scenes dynamic between WWE head Vince McMahon and Paul Heyman was amplified and presented on television this week when McMahon and Heyman had a backstage promo exchange during Monday's Raw. The exchange included the classic retort to anything Heyman says that he doesn't know the difference between lies and the truth, but also captured Heyman's ability to present ideas to McMahon. Whether McMahon uses the ideas is another story.

 

During Friday's PWTorch Livecast, former WWE Creative writers Seth Mates and Andrew Goldstein both painted a picture of McMahon loathing Heyman, but also seeing him as good for business. McMahon did not want to use Heyman's idea to push C.M. Punk as the next big star in 2006, which contributed to Heyman leaving WWE, but he also recognized that Heyman would be good for business to associate with Punk in 2012.

 

Mates and Goldstein, drawing from their time in the trenches in WWE, noted the dynamic between McMahon and Heyman extends to Stephanie McMahon and Triple H, who also cannot stand Heyman, but view him as useful as a TV character. Using his ideas is another story, which is one of several reasons why Heyman will likely never be a full-time member of the Creative team again.

 

"The three of them cannot stand Paul Heyman," said former writer Andrew Goldstein, who was in WWE during Heyman's final days in 2006. "They sit around and they joke about Paul Heyman - about him sweating and his suits are cheap and he showed up in a rented, broken-down limo the first day he signed a contract to make himself look like a big deal, and they make fun of his ideas and they do imitations of him. But, I think all three of them are extremely jealous of his brain."

 

Continuing the theme of behind-the-scenes pushed to in-front-of-the-cameras, Goldstein said he's sure there were shoot elements when Stephanie returned to TV in July and slapped Heyman across the face while Hunter stood in the ring. "I know how real that was - how much enjoyment Stephanie got from actually getting to do that," said Goldstein.

 

In addition to Heyman's political style, Heyman's pattern of pitching new ideas seems to be one of the main points of contention between Heyman and the McMahons. Whereas McMahon sticks to what works and "gets every ounce out of it," as Mates said, Heyman is always looking for "the next big thing."

 

Mates recalled how this came into play at Summerslam 2002 when WWE focused heavily on The Rock and Brock Lesnar in training videos to build toward the PPV.

 

"I'll never forget," Mates said. "Paul said to Vince, 'Vince, those vignettes changed our business.' Paul understood that the next big boom in terms of competition was going to be legitimate fighting combat and how that comes together. Paul had touched on the UFC boom before it ever happened. We ran those vignettes up to Summerslam and they went over really well, and by the next month, we're back to wrestling storylines again. I'm not saying Vince should have fundamentally changed things. But, that's Paul's strength. Paul is that contrary voice screaming that the emperor is naked when everyone else knows that the secret to their own job stability is to pretend that the emperor's clothes are beautiful."

 

Goldstein echoed Mates's story recalling the final blow-up between Heyman and the McMahons at the December to Dismember PPV in December 2005. "Paul was adamant," Goldstein said. "We have to have Punk go over the Big Show and put the ECW Title on this guy and let's ride him. And, Vince, whether it was a good idea (or not), because it came from Paul, he said, 'Oh no. Big Show. Big Show. Big Show. (Bobby) Lashley. I'm going to make this my own. Paul, shut up."

 

What brought Heyman back to WWE was Brock Lesnar, and WWE realizing (too late) that Lesnar needed a mouthpiece. Now, Heyman is able to contribute ideas again, albeit not in a formal setting. Whether it works out in the long-term between the Heyman Camp, which also includes current WWE champion C.M. Punk, and the McMahon Trio remains to be seen.

 

"Paul doesn't care what anybody thinks of him, but the three of them can't stand Paul," said Goldstein. "But, I will give Vince credit to this - he will do whatever is right for business."

[Pistolas]

[Dolph Ziggler]

WWE RAW takes place tonight, with the following scheduled…

 

* CM Punk must decide between John Cena and Ryback as his HIAC opponent, or Vince McMahon will make the choice for him.

 

* The show will feature the finals of a tag tournament to determine who receives a Tag Title shot at Hell in a Cell as Rey Mysterio & Sin Cara vs. Rhodes Scholars (Damien Sandow & Cody Rhodes).

 

* Advertised for the live crowd is Sheamus vs. CM Punk in a non-title Champion vs. Champion match.

Editado 15 Outubro 2012 por Dolph Ziggler

[htc]

CM Punk diz que não quer nenhum, temos Triple Threat, Punk faz a pinfall ao Cena mantendo o título e o Ryback continua sem perder. Booking 101.

[45roma]

CM Punk diz que não quer nenhum, temos Triple Threat, Punk faz a pinfall ao Cena mantendo o título e o Ryback continua sem perder. Booking 101.

Perdia à mesma :mrgreen:

 

A WWE nunca punha o Cena a ser pinado, exceto se for por interferência

Editado 15 Outubro 2012 por 45roma