|
rotinaj posted:Is the businessman a successful one? Let's not forget, Vince McMahon is technically a businessman. Vince McMahon is also a successful businessman, he just isn't anywhere near as successful as he could be/has been in the past. He is far, far, far, far from being a failed businessman though - Eric Bischoff, some would argue, is a successful failed businessman. The answer is that you can't say one or the other is naturally going to be better, it's not as simplistic as that. A good businessman might be a terrible wrestling promoter, a good wrestling promoter might be a terrible businessman, but the same doesn't hold true for all instances of those individuals and occupations.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
If someone has a proven wrestling background they are a better bet in the wrestling business than someone with a business background. I can't even think of someone in the recent past with no experience in wrestling but a good business background who managed to do well in the wrestling business. They usually think they know business and wrestling is easy and then lose a bunch of money. The only person I can remotely think of as fitting the bill is Cary Silken but he was a lifelong fan, friends with several wrestlers and bookers and had something of an inside view to the Puerto Rican wrestling world. At this point wrestling background is essentially meaningless as any yahoo can get one. If I had a choice between the equivalent experience of Paul Heyman or Jim Cornette and a successful business owner/CEO I'd go with the former every time. But only if I was forced to since no one should go into wrestling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:The answer is that you can't say one or the other is naturally going to be better, it's not as simplistic as that. A good businessman might be a terrible wrestling promoter, a good wrestling promoter might be a terrible businessman, but the same doesn't hold true for all instances of those individuals and occupations. No, but which would you prefer? It's like the Klosterman question of whether you want to be with Person A who's nice or Person B who's nice, "and patriotic". That's the only detail you know. What does that word make you think about the person? Here, you got two promoters. Pretty much the same situations. However, Promoter A is a wrestler and Promoter B is a businessman. Would you rather work for the businessman running a wrestling company or the wrestler running the wrestling company?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
What if you paired the businessman with the wrestler and formed a super company? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:You're adding details not given to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:No, but which would you prefer? It's actually nothing like the Klosterman thing because that was intended to display how one word shapes perceptions of people. You're asking for the old 'would you like x or the opposite of x?' A Klosterman thing would be 'would you work for a businessman, or a businessman with a wrestling history' or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:It's actually nothing like the Klosterman thing because that was intended to display how one word shapes perceptions of people. Fair enough. If you had to choose between two wrestling promoters, and the only thing different was that one is described to have, "a business background", would that make you rather want to work for that promoter or rather work for the other?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:First the TNA website is hacked Saw this posted in the ROH thread, what's this all about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Used to be on prime time TV every Saturday or Sunday afternoon. They played it dead straight, straighter than even the southernest rasslin' with strict rules and stuff. Was seen a very "low brow" form of entertainment, hence it being in the Sun. I wasn't being sarcastic. I know that wrestling used to be big in England but I was talking more now. Living in Denmark, the only time wrestling gets mentioned in the media is if one of the old guys dies (Macho Man got a mention in the largest daily tabloid when he died) or when someone goes insane (Benoit) or stuff like the Hulk Hogan reality show/divorce thing. Other than that, there is no mention of anything related to wrestling and nothing gets shown on tv. It pretty much died out in the mass consciousness alongside Hulkamania. There was some very sparse coverage in the late 90s (Thunder was on TV for a while in 99 but not Nitro) but that was it. I guess it helps in England that Sky actually shows RAW/Smackdown and the PPVs and I think TNA is on tv in England as well. I just thinks its a bit funny that a big paper (trashy as it is) like The Sun covers wrestling as much as they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 10:48
|
|
on me.
|
This is related to something that came up in the spoilers thread and I don't want to derail it further: Do any kids actually think wrestling is real past the age where they go to preschool? There were always kids (mostly girls) who laughed at the kids who talked all the time about wrestling and how fake it was by elementary school and I honestly can't remember much of preschool but I imagine it was the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 10:54
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:This is related to something that came up in the spoilers thread and I don't want to derail it further: my dad told me wrestling was fake roughly one month into me becoming a fan of it (July 1996... the Raw when farooq debuted and attacked Ahmed Johnson... I was 9 years old. Before that, I never watched a minute of wrestling, thus never had the real vs. fake debate with someone on the monkey bars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:Do any kids actually think wrestling is real past the age where they go to preschool? There were always kids (mostly girls) who laughed at the kids who talked all the time about wrestling and how fake it was by elementary school and I honestly can't remember much of preschool but I imagine it was the same. I can't say. I started watching wrestling around the 5th grade and I knew it wasn't real from the start. I know that young children are very impressionable, but I think they'd have to be exceptionally naive to think it's real past like, age eight or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 11:19
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Saw this posted in the ROH thread, what's this all about? quote:TNA’s website, ImpactWrestling.com was hacked twice on sunday with one message posted saying “I LOVE YOU MINDY” and a photo of an eagle drapped on the flag of Algeria. It was hacked a 2nd time with an unknown mark but TNA staff took the site down and left this message up “THE SITE IS UNDER MAINTENANCE. PLEASE CHECK BACK SHORTLY…..” Hopefully they will patch the server to block out any future attempts. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 11:30
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:Do any kids actually think wrestling is real past the age where they go to preschool? I was real little when I first saw wrestling while my dad was flipping the channels. Hulk was giving a big boot to some jabroni and I discerned it was all an act immediately. Didn't check for wrestling for years afterwards. One day, me and my baby brother were being big couch potatoes and happened to come across the beginning of the Goldberg match where he "broke the record" for quickest bout in WCW history. When he hit his signature jackhammer move and pinned the guy, we both marked the gently caress out. Totally suspended disbelief, for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:This is related to something that came up in the spoilers thread and I don't want to derail it further: The day the argument died for me was when HHH was brutally murdered by Steve Austin and showed up the next week with a bandage on his forehead. Although yes, I knew it was fake long before this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
iCloud Strife posted:I was real little when I first saw wrestling while my dad was flipping the channels. Hulk was giving a big boot to some jabroni and I discerned it was all an act immediately. Didn't check for wrestling for years afterwards. One day, me and my baby brother were being big couch potatoes and happened to come across the beginning of the Goldberg match where he "broke the record" for quickest bout in WCW history. When he hit his signature jackhammer move and pinned the guy, we both marked the gently caress out. Totally suspended disbelief, for no reason. It's because his early matches felt important and brutal. His style was kinda stiff, as Bret can attest, and it was very physical. Less hip toss, more hoss. I loved Goldberg's early run, even as I was falling out of love with WCW. It didn't feel like an angle or story, and even back then, at 14 or so, I knew what angles and story arcs were. But I wasn't looking for an angle with Goldberg. I wasn't looking for anything. It was just incredibly engaging. It felt like being a part of something significant, which is what modern wrestling lacks. MitB w/ Punk was the first thing that felt remotely significant in years, and they blew that feeling in 8 or 9 days. It was still good. It just got blown and it was a real good chance for them to do something really fun and different. Think about the last couple months. What part did they really need CM Punk for before now? Del Rio cashes on Cena instead, yadda yadda, Punk comes back and does true champ angle with Del Rio. About the only argument to that is that keeping Punk off TV would kill his heat. But things like Comicon and whatnot kinda disproved that. It's easily possible to keep relevant off TV in this day and age. He could have taken the summer off, dodged HHH entirely, and come back into this exact angle, refreshed and giving the angle the time it needed, at the risk of minimal heat loss. Why didn't they do that? This feels really redundant. It probably is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
I've always sort of assumed that kayfabe and Santa Claus worked on pretty much the same level. Kids will eventually get old enough to realize that based on observable reality, the poo poo makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:Hypothetical Question: I work for B, because he's a money mark and I can probably make a lot for less effort. Then, when he goes out of business, I'll try to get a job with company A. Jerusalem posted:Vince McMahon is also a successful businessman, he just isn't anywhere near as successful as he could be/has been in the past. No, he's a successful wrestling promoter. Every other business venture he has ever been involved with (running the Cape Cod Coliseum, WBF, ICOPro, XFW, WWE Films) has been a tremendous bust. He's good at one thing, and even that had a huge benefit of being given one of the most successful territories to start with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:This is related to something that came up in the spoilers thread and I don't want to derail it further:
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
I discovered wrestling literally the day Hall walked onto Nitro to start the NWO stuff. I guess I was twelve? I had no idea it was all setup. No one at school ever talked about things like "promos" or "work rate" or whatever, it was just, "dude! Did you see that awesome thing that happened?!" It never occurred to me that angry men in spandex assaulting each other on television could be scripted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
For some reason, when I started watching (build to Wrestlemania 4), I thought/knew that the in-ring part was fake, but I thought all the backstage stuff was real (I was 7). The fact that they had Jack Tunney and all this official looking controversy about the title and it being vacant definitely cemented that opinion. I never thought Jack Tunney would lie to me 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:Nope. If that's all the info I could have, I wouldn't go to either. If they want me enough they'll give me more info. (sorry, I'm Karl Pilkington level bad at hypotheticals)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:If that's all the info I could have, I wouldn't go to either. If they want me enough they'll give me more info. "Say Vince lives to be 150." "He won't."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
I got really into wrestling when I was 11, and I felt like I needed to say it was real in order to defend it from my family. But my parents also needed to break the news to me about Santa Claus when I was 10. I was a trusting child.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:I got really into wrestling when I was 11, and I felt like I needed to say it was real in order to defend it from my family. Yeah I think this was how I was too. When someone says "Don't you know wrestling is FAKE" how is a kid supposed to respond? The first thing that comes to mind is "NUH UH it's real you're STUPID"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
.
Thauros fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
*Watches dude bleeding out of his forehead* Yeah that's fake blood, it's all just blood capsules
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
I'm finding it cool that a number of people here starting watching at the same time I did. Hogan/Andre on SNME was the first specific angle I can recall seeing, although I had been watching the random matches on Superstars a few months prior to that. Anyway there was a point where I subconsciously accepted the fakeness, not like a specific moment but more of a growing awareness that Hulk Hogan always "had to" come out on top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:*Watches dude bleeding out of his forehead* Yeah that's fake blood, it's all just blood capsules My favorite thing I've ever heard is that the steel chairs are fake. I don't even know how that would work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Minidust posted:I'm finding it cool that a number of people here starting watching at the same time I did. Hogan/Andre on SNME was the first specific angle I can recall seeing, although I had been watching the random matches on Superstars a few months prior to that. Same here. Then after that I went out and rented WM 1-3. Oh for the internet back then! We had to wait a whole week for the results of WM4!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
My friends and I in elementary were a lot like the Internet. We knew it was all fake. However, anytime a heel cheated, made a backstage attack, etc., he was SHOOTING~~~
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Same here. Then after that I went out and rented WM 1-3. Oh for the internet back then! We had to wait a whole week for the results of WM4! projecthalaxy posted:My friends and I in elementary were a lot like the Internet. We knew it was all fake. However, anytime a heel cheated, made a backstage attack, etc., he was SHOOTING~~~
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Wow, I have not thought about Supertape for well over 15 years now. They should bring it back as a Johnny Curtis-endorsed industrial adhesive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Minidust posted:My local video shop lacked a complete selection of Wrestlemanias, but they had "Supertape!" and other such oddities from Coliseum Home Video. These random compilation videos would always include a "fan request" match that no fan in his right mind would actually request. I wanted to see Repo Man vs. Max Moon 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
As a stupid little kid, I lived in a blissful state of double-think, where of course it was absolutely 100% real but when me and my friends wrestled during recess - we all instinctively stomped our feet while faking punches and made a point of doing moves "safely". We never discussed it or brought it up at all, it was just something that was known and done. Except for the Figure 4. The Figure 4 was real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
During the CM Punk and Del Rio segment the crowd is chanting something that I cannot understand, and no I am not referring to the CM punk chants. What i am talking about occurs at 1:18 in the below video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc7lWk-kRno
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
They're chanting "WHO ARE YA!?!" It's a football chant meant to basically say,"You're pathetic, you're a loser, you're nobody, you're nothing important."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:They're chanting "WHO ARE YA!?!" It's a football chant meant to basically say,"You're pathetic, you're a loser, you're nobody, you're nothing important." I can hear that now, much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Cardboard Box posted:My favorite thing I've ever heard is that the steel chairs are fake. I don't even know how that would work. This makes me think about Triple H's sledgehammer. Ask most people and they'll tell you it's fake. Triple H once reported that it's a real sledgehammer and the one time they used a prop sledgehammer so he could actually hit someone with it, it injured them. Since then he just covers his hand on the sledge and hits people, or always misses with a swing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:They're chanting "WHO ARE YA!?!" It's a football chant meant to basically say,"You're pathetic, you're a loser, you're nobody, you're nothing important." I kinda want to see RAW in New Orleans now just so I can see chants of "WHO DAT?!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 23:17
|
|
