Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,356
    Really well thought out response Sam, I wouldn't expect any less from you. Curious myself to see Shane's response, for my part I do share a dislike specifically for the three points of ROH you highlighted, though I'm glad you did come back to acknowledge some of the good stuff they did, which was more than they seemed to get credit for from most.

  2. #42
    Cero Miedo Mystic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    257
    I just woke up, and I am VERY HAPPY TO SEE THIS DIALOGUE, Sam. I named you in the show, for at least three reasons I can think of:

    1. As mentioned, you were literally the only person who has built enough ethos with me that I was willing to read (knowing the critique was going to be there) once I had already seen what felt like 100 testimonies of the same critique (and often, in them, with no explanation needed).
    2. Originally I planned to read the section you quoted on air, so that I could show where I was seeing explanation from you and where I was still seeing such a collective agreement that explanation wasn't even needed. (I didn't do this simply because I had the 14-hour day before the show, and I knew we were going to risk going over even without anything added.)
    3. I actually WANT THE DIALOGUE. I am not frustrated, for example, if anyone can tell me Roh should not give Enzo and Cass a chance and here's the reasons why. I am suspicious (of all things) when, up front, it feels like any entire community has decided, "Nope. Fuck that. Bad move. No explanation needed." So I want to see the reasons and have the dialogue, and I thought, if anyone, you would step up and do it.

    So, now I'm going to read what you have written (happily, so!) and respond as best I can:

    I take your first point, which is your statements in the column were bound by the context in which they were delivered. That is partly what I just explained above, concerning my statements on the show, so we now both know the contexts that produced the statements we made (and which limited the ones we didn't make or barely made).

    I think the part I wonder about, after reading the paragraph in which you stand by your statements, is:

    How is everyone (but specifically, for this conversation, you) so able to see (and assess) all these moves as immediately ridiculous or bad for Roh?

    I will break the Rumble decision apart from the other two, because I feel it's a bit different, but here is what I'd like to ask as far as it concerns The Beautiful People and Enzo and Cass:

    Is Roh not allowed to take creative risks (outside of what we would expect from them) or is it simply that, under no circumstances, are they allowed to make decisions based off Angelina Love, Velvet Sky, Enzo, or Cass, and who decides this, how, and why? Or, is it, for you, the WAY they did it? If so, don't you think they also left fans with the push of Roosh, the title win of Taven, the redemption of Flip, etc., and not just the debuts?

    OK, and so far I'm not saying whether these were good moves or not, but I start by thinking of myself as booking for Roh. Even if they do straight wrestling and nothing else, they are still coming out the losers compared to NJPW. I think we'd agree on this.

    This next part here is hypothetical, so we can't say, but I doubt, even if they had strictly stuck to wrestling, they are picking up a bunch of fans off one split show with NJPW. (As mizfan and I mentioned, I think they have bigger, more structural issues that keep me (and maybe others) from watching.)

    Is the problem that the four people mentioned are simply not of any wresting quality worthy of Roh? Is it that it's been decided they should be ostracized from the business? Or is it that they don't fit the Roh brand?

    For me, I do think the Beautiful People were more over than anyone is letting on, but I also know that was a long time ago. I do think the nuance here is that they were used to put over someone who was already there, as they seemed like the two on the side, lifting up a new challenger (at least on this night).

    With Enzo and Cass, while I am not putting myself in the position to defend the worked shoot, I can acknowledge that these guys are heat magnets right now (and maybe in a way that will be detrimental to Roh but maybe not), and that Enzo has been over at times and able to make himself felt, gimmick wise, in a way a lot of Roh folks can't. I don't think it's insane to be in Roh creative and say, Let's see what we can get from this.

    As I type this, where I think I would agree with everyone might be in the COMBINATION of both the Beautiful People and Enzo and Cass. Here, with the two big storyline debuts being people who are far more gimmicky than wrestling-oriented, I can see a legit critique that ALL YOUR DEBUTS are OUTSIDE YOUR LANE and OUTSIDE YOUR BRAND.

    That seems fair to me.

    What I'm left wondering is this:

    Is your biggest critique the Vince Russo-ish nature of this? Is it that these four folks don't deserve a shot at employment? Is it that it's outside the Roh brand? Is it that it's just a bad look for how they used their MSG-moment (but they also did a lot of other things that night)? Is it something else? What is your biggest critique of these moves and why?

    In praise of you, because I don't think I say it on the show, it was probably your article that allowed me to know that Roh was responsible for helping get them in that building, so props to you for putting that in there as well. Which is nuanced in your take for sure.

    As for the Rumble, I am happy they gave us Liger-Muta, but I have nothing for defending giving us them at the end followed by a cheap "eliminated eliminator." So, I'm off that one completely.

    I'm glad you see the strength of the show overall. I haven't sat down and watched that much wrestling in FOREVER, and I know part of my crankiness was actually enjoying a show and then rushing in with that enjoyment to find so much rejection in so many places. So we all are coming from our contexts and experiences, but I did enjoy the show overall and was thankful it happened.

    (The funny thing is I also am not a Roh fan so, in some ways, what a conversation to have between two not-Roh fans....)

    Lastly, I want to make sure that mentioning you does not equate for me as critiquing you when I critique the wider collective stance. I said your name, to position you as an individual, and not part of what I was referring to. Just want to make sure I'm clear on that.

    OMEGA

    Love getting some Omega feedback.

    Your comments give me 1. A couple things I like 2. A fear I now have 3. Some uncertainties

    (This will be a long path for me on deciding on Omega because he is positioned so high and important for AEW).

    I will start by saying, if there is a multi-verse, the happiest version of me might have moved to Japan 10-15 years ago to teach conversational English, while yearly attending E3, Tales of Festival, and NJPW. So, I am seeing *a* Kenny Omega in BTE, at times, that I can certainly relate to. How that translates to convincing me of an intense, main event feud, is still to be seen.

    Things I like: his selling the other arm with Penta. Good stuff. Potentially doing those moves of the other members for a deeper reason.

    Fear: The cinematic and the over done. If I had to put it to Kenny, I might say I was actually a fan of Final Fantasy UNTIL the graphics improved so much that they began to rely too much on video and faces and voices. I liked the old school, I liked the storytelling, the grittiness, the guessing. I don't need to watch it overly conveyed to me in video. . .This stuff will be subjective, as I watch him, but i have, in the past, been put off by guys who overdo it.

    Uncertainty: My felt sense says this is a guy who is going to bother me, someone I'm going to see (whether true or not) as doing some of what he does in ABSENCE of simply being able to make me feel what I need to feel. . .However, I am completely happy being wrong about that. I know so little and, even in this year, I'm going to see so much. So, we shall see.

    I'd be glad to watch those matches sometime. That will be up to mizfan, as Convince Me! is his domain.

    Seriously, thank you for reaching out. I am someone who hates a world where people simply argue, and I hate the world where we censor and vilify who we don't agree with.

    However, I LOVE dialogue.

    I may convince you a bit; you may convince me a bit.

    Neither of us may be convinced of anything.

    But both of us leave, at minimum, with broader perspectives and more strengthened stances.

    Thank you for engaging.

  3. #43
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,356
    You put me in a tricky situation with Omega, Sam! I had 2 different matches in mind, ones I haven't seen as I'm still trying to convince myself to Omega on some degree. Was looking at the Cody match in San Francisco and the Sabre match from this year's G1. But considering how Shane enjoyed Okada and Naito on the MSG show, those might be the perfect matches to put his mind at ease. I'll have to think on it!

  4. #44
    Member #25 SirSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,327
    The Cody match is probably a good one for what we might get in AEW because, lets face it, there is no one who can substitute in for Okada.

    I do enjoy the Sabre match too as he is quite a unique opponent.

    Also I will respond in full to what you've said Mystic I just need time to put it all together.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •