|
Post by stylesclash516 on Jan 11, 2009 11:47:12 GMT -5
Actually, it was said on the November Pain dvd when he faced Austin Starr (Aires) that he was fired for having more talent then Benoit.
|
|
|
Post by rzombie1988 on Jan 11, 2009 14:10:30 GMT -5
Actually, it was said on the November Pain dvd when he faced Austin Starr (Aires) that he was fired for having more talent then Benoit. Need I say more.
|
|
|
Post by stylesclash516 on Jan 11, 2009 14:16:34 GMT -5
Actually, it was said on the November Pain dvd when he faced Austin Starr (Aires) that he was fired for having more talent then Benoit. Need I say more. Not quite sure I follow what you're trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by drwrestling on Jan 11, 2009 14:38:30 GMT -5
Actually, it was said on the November Pain dvd when he faced Austin Starr (Aires) that he was fired for having more talent then Benoit. Who's Benoit?
|
|
|
Post by stylesclash516 on Jan 11, 2009 14:42:57 GMT -5
Actually, it was said on the November Pain dvd when he faced Austin Starr (Aires) that he was fired for having more talent then Benoit. Who's Benoit? That would be Chris Benoit, there, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by drwrestling on Jan 11, 2009 14:50:47 GMT -5
But the thing is those guys have to wrestle somebody good to have a 5 star match. By the way, most of those guys did wrestle each other and there's no way those were 5 star matches. In my opinion, if WWE would just give guys like Vito and Dustin Rhodes who have been wrestling for nearly twice as long as Cena, Batista, etc., the right gimmick then they would be great. If you remember back a guy named Gunner Scott (now known as Brent Albright) was fired for having more talent then Chris Benoit. This is why they don't give the good wrestlers that get hired a necessary push because they have way more talent then the main eventers. I'm afraid Low-Ki will probably have that happen to him. Just a few things to respond to here, the whole five star system means nothing and how many "stars" a match gets means nothing. If a match is good, it's a good match and really can someone explain the difference between a four star match and a five star match? As far as what you said about Cena, your idea of a "good" wrestler and WWE's idea of a "good" wrestler are two different things. It's apples to oranges in some ways. Just because Albright can suplex someone doesn't make him a good wrestler by WWE standards. WWE's matches are usually based on wrestling psychology and ROH's is based on high spots. Don't give me wrong here, I'm not saying anything negative about either style, it's just that they are two different things, which is why some ROH style wrestlers such as Albright don't get a push there. WWE has it's solid technical wrestlers with Jericho, Punk, HBK, and others but the difference is they use their skills differently than someone in ROH. Aside from that, the WWE has to see if a wrestler is marketable for their audience because that draws more money, which is the point of the wrestling business. That's really the major difference between a pro wrestling company and a sports entertainment company.
|
|
|
Post by drwrestling on Jan 11, 2009 14:52:32 GMT -5
That would be Chris Benoit, there, I said it. Chris Benoit? Who's he?
|
|
|
Post by stylesclash516 on Jan 11, 2009 15:17:57 GMT -5
But the thing is those guys have to wrestle somebody good to have a 5 star match. By the way, most of those guys did wrestle each other and there's no way those were 5 star matches. In my opinion, if WWE would just give guys like Vito and Dustin Rhodes who have been wrestling for nearly twice as long as Cena, Batista, etc., the right gimmick then they would be great. If you remember back a guy named Gunner Scott (now known as Brent Albright) was fired for having more talent then Chris Benoit. This is why they don't give the good wrestlers that get hired a necessary push because they have way more talent then the main eventers. I'm afraid Low-Ki will probably have that happen to him. Just a few things to respond to here, the whole five star system means nothing and how many "stars" a match gets means nothing. If a match is good, it's a good match and really can someone explain the difference between a four star match and a five star match? As far as what you said about Cena, your idea of a "good" wrestler and WWE's idea of a "good" wrestler are two different things. It's apples to oranges in some ways. Just because Albright can suplex someone doesn't make him a good wrestler by WWE standards. WWE's matches are usually based on wrestling psychology and ROH's is based on high spots. Don't give me wrong here, I'm not saying anything negative about either style, it's just that they are two different things, which is why some ROH style wrestlers such as Albright don't get a push there. WWE has it's solid technical wrestlers with Jericho, Punk, HBK, and others but the difference is they use their skills differently than someone in ROH. Aside from that, the WWE has to see if a wrestler is marketable for their audience because that draws more money, which is the point of the wrestling business. That's really the major difference between a pro wrestling company and a sports entertainment company. Just a quick arguing point, ROH isn't all about high spots. Nigel McGuiness does what, 2 or 3 high spots a year and he's their champion. The same goes for guys like Bryan Danielson, Roderick Strong, Brent Albright, etc. So in conclusion, ROH isn't all about high spots, it's about pro wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by randomtool on Jan 11, 2009 16:07:08 GMT -5
brents an alright wrestler but to compare him to benoit is ridiculous, even if benoit was a a roided out psycho he is still the best in ring phycoligist ever in my opinion besides maybe hbk or Jericho. Even though Brent only had a few matches in wwe, i cant remember one that made me think he was good. Even in wwe he proved he had a personallity but besides his match with denni and reyes at super indy I dont recall any memorable matches. He may look good in roh but thats because half the people hes doin suplexs to are half his size. He couldnt have done that in wwe if he tried. Also i dont even like Batista or Cena but you can argue all you want but i think the general consensus is that batista and cena can have good matches, i thought both their matches at Armageddon were pretty solid good matches. Getting back to the point of this post though, the only way lowki will succeed is if they dont change his character at all because low ki is awesome as just some little samauri warrior who kicks ass, he has no personallity at all though so if they try out a stupid gimmick on him hes destined to get fired
|
|
|
Post by stylesclash516 on Jan 11, 2009 16:28:12 GMT -5
Just another small arguing point, Albright has suplexed guys way bigger then him. See Takeshi Morishima, Kensuke Sasake, Nigel McGuiness, Chris Hero, the list goes on. Also, i'm sure if you look hard enough you will find guys that are better technical wrestlers then Benoit, not by much though. See Johny Saint, Bryan Danielson, once again the list goes on.
|
|
|
Post by drwrestling on Jan 11, 2009 20:27:14 GMT -5
Just a few things to respond to here, the whole five star system means nothing and how many "stars" a match gets means nothing. If a match is good, it's a good match and really can someone explain the difference between a four star match and a five star match? As far as what you said about Cena, your idea of a "good" wrestler and WWE's idea of a "good" wrestler are two different things. It's apples to oranges in some ways. Just because Albright can suplex someone doesn't make him a good wrestler by WWE standards. WWE's matches are usually based on wrestling psychology and ROH's is based on high spots. Don't give me wrong here, I'm not saying anything negative about either style, it's just that they are two different things, which is why some ROH style wrestlers such as Albright don't get a push there. WWE has it's solid technical wrestlers with Jericho, Punk, HBK, and others but the difference is they use their skills differently than someone in ROH. Aside from that, the WWE has to see if a wrestler is marketable for their audience because that draws more money, which is the point of the wrestling business. That's really the major difference between a pro wrestling company and a sports entertainment company. Just a quick arguing point, ROH isn't all about high spots. Nigel McGuiness does what, 2 or 3 high spots a year and he's their champion. The same goes for guys like Bryan Danielson, Roderick Strong, Brent Albright, etc. So in conclusion, ROH isn't all about high spots, it's about pro wrestling. Maybe a better way to explain it is ROH's more high risk style. I see your point but it still remains that you can't really compare ROH's style to the WWE's style.
|
|