|
|
Post by swarm on Aug 25, 2006 16:38:48 GMT -5
Well on the PPV where they almost burned the place down they referred to Joe as "undefeated" several times. 4wiw.
|
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Aug 25, 2006 17:31:05 GMT -5
Swarm is correct. It's all too easy to over-analyze the content and then fantasy book 'better ways' to do the angles seen on television...especially when one can conveniently divorce themselves from the consequences of dealing with the other talent involved, their specific personal and professional motivations and most importantly the creative guarantees that guide what said performers will agree to as understood from times past. The reality is booking something like 'the undefeated streak of Umaga' doesn't occur in a vacuum when you actually have to do it 'for real'.
I'm sure it's not easy to convince headliners like HHH (who very rarely gets cleanly pinned in televised singles matches) let alone Shawn Michaels (who I can't recall jobbing cleanly as a face in literally years) that it makes 'good business sense' for them to be pinned...straight up or otherwise...by an unproven performer like Umaga. From their perspective it really doesn't benefit them in any way. Both guys are bound to make more money being programmed with other name performers on the roster than ever working 'revenge programs' with a higher up the card Samoan Bulldozer. That they were professional enough to lay down for him in any form is a surprise and probably indicates Vince must have really pushed hard for it to go through.
Since they (and Cena) are the ones positioned to draw money and carry the television time that sells the 'for pay' content it really wouldn't make sense to devalue any of them with clean loses without a money program to cash in on....nor is Umaga ready yet to play such a role The interference asterisk you can place next to the victories makes perfect sense...while giving SBD 'the name rub' and keeping Hunter and Shawn relatively agreeable and happy enough to go along with the whole thing. In the end it was the most practical way to do it.
LWPD (like so many other pro wres reputation build ups...Umaga's victories are likely to continue to be mentioned as feathers in his cap whenever he appears on television...when done right...over time 'how the wins happened' becomes forgotten by the larger audience...the only thing that matters in selling the character is the names said pin fall victories came over)
|
|
|
|
Post by Talison on Aug 25, 2006 18:14:36 GMT -5
Actually, Swarm, Chrins makes a good point about none elimination triple threats. Part of the reason I havn't done any of these in my Leagues is because I don't know how to record them. Does the guy uninvolved in the fall count as having been beat, or simply not having won? I think there is a differance. I can see both view's arguements.
What about something like a multi person ladder match. To win you need to get the belt or whatever. The other guy's havn't been pinned, submitted, or been involved in the decision in any way. Is this a loss, or simply just not a win?
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Aug 25, 2006 18:56:16 GMT -5
Swarm is correct. It's all too easy to over-analyze the content and then fantasy book 'better ways' to do the angles seen on television...especially when one can conveniently divorce themselves from the consequences of dealing with the other talent involved, their specific personal and professional motivations and most importantly the creative guarantees that guide what said performers will agree to as understood from times past. The reality is booking something like 'the undefeated streak of Umaga' doesn't occur in a vacuum when you actually have to do it 'for real'. I'm sure it's not easy to convince headliners like HHH (who very rarely gets cleanly pinned in televised singles matches) let alone Shawn Michaels (who I can't recall jobbing cleanly as a face in literally years) that it makes 'good business sense' for them to be pinned...straight up or otherwise...by an unproven performer like Umaga. From their perspective it really doesn't benefit them in any way. Both guys are bound to make more money being programmed with other name performers on the roster than ever working 'revenge programs' with a higher up the card Samoan Bulldozer. That they were professional enough to lay down for him in any form is a surprise and probably indicates Vince must have really pushed hard for it to go through. Since they (and Cena) are the ones positioned to draw money and carry the television time that sells the 'for pay' content it really wouldn't make sense to devalue any of them with clean loses without a money program to cash in on....nor is Umaga ready yet to play such a role The interference asterisk you can place next to the victories makes perfect sense...while giving SBD 'the name rub' and keeping Hunter and Shawn relatively agreeable and happy enough to go along with the whole thing. In the end it was the most practical way to do it.
LWPD (like so many other pro wres reputation build ups...Umaga's victories are likely to continue to be mentioned as feathers in his cap whenever he appears on television...when done right...over time 'how the wins happened' becomes forgotten by the larger audience...the only thing that matters in selling the character is the names said pin fall victories came over) Speaking of overanalyzing, Swarm said Umaga's streak was more impressive than Goldberg's...I said it wasn't and gave a couple reasons why...Naturally my entire post save for the first line was ignored...The part that was acknowledged was so taken out of context it's not funny... I said "Takes away from"...Not Nullifies...ANYONE can get an assisted victory over Triple H, even Jim Ross...Not everyone can get a clean win over a heavily assisted Hollywood Hogan (the same guy that "decided" he should take the belt from Sting and Savage the nights after they won the World Title)... Back on topic...As Talison mentioned, Joe as a heel took major unassisted wins over Daniels and Styles, one at a time AND both at once...Not to mention the rest of the X-Division...Whether you consider them competition or not, the operative word here is "Unassisted"... That in itself doesn't make Joe's streak more impressive than Umaga's, but when you talk about the two, it's always going to come up that Umaga had help and Joe didn't...Like it or not, that counts for something... |
|
|
|
Post by blueraider1 on Aug 25, 2006 18:59:39 GMT -5
this is like watching a tennis match back and forth,back and forth.dont you'll get tired of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by incognito on Aug 25, 2006 23:03:21 GMT -5
No. No I don't ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Aug 26, 2006 0:41:55 GMT -5
The way I see it, if you don't win the match, you lost.
I don't know how you can see it any other way.
The object of the match, is to win. If you don't, it's not a "non-win" because that is the same as saying loss.
If you're in a Triple Threat Match and you're not involved in the pin, even though YOU weren't pinned, you still lost the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Aug 26, 2006 0:46:20 GMT -5
The fact that All three of Umaga's vaunted wins were loaded takes away from his awesome streak...Goldberg beat Raven+5 other guys for the US title...He beat Hogan+5 other guys for the World Title, which he held for 5 months...The big thing though is that he never had help...Triple H, Michaels and Cena all got beat by the Spirit Squad in previous weeks... Ok, I can only say this so many times. Goldberg's streak and Umaga's streak will not be the same! Goldberg was a face so he's supposed to win clean. Umaga is a heel so he will have tainted victories somewhat often. It's how you get more fans to hate him. |
|
|
|
Post by offspring515 on Aug 26, 2006 2:00:24 GMT -5
Well, by the same token that one could say "He didn't WIN so he LOST" you could pretty easily say "He didn't LOSE so he WON".
This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that we're debating wins and losses in a "sport" where they really don't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Aug 26, 2006 7:23:50 GMT -5
Remember that time when that one team won the Super bowl but every other team in the playoffs didn't "lose", they just didn't "win"?
yeah, I don't remember that either...
It's AMAZING the lengths Fat Joe's fans will go to try to defend this slob...
HE LOST. He did. He didn't win, so therefore, he lost. It's the simplest of formulas.
He's lost. He's not undefeated. Not even a little bit.
My dog could see that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Aug 26, 2006 10:17:12 GMT -5
The fact that All three of Umaga's vaunted wins were loaded takes away from his awesome streak...Goldberg beat Raven+5 other guys for the US title...He beat Hogan+5 other guys for the World Title, which he held for 5 months...The big thing though is that he never had help...Triple H, Michaels and Cena all got beat by the Spirit Squad in previous weeks... Ok, I can only say this so many times. Goldberg's streak and Umaga's streak will not be the same! Goldberg was a face so he's supposed to win clean. Umaga is a heel so he will have tainted victories somewhat often. It's how you get more fans to hate him. Hey, don't look at me, I didn't say Umaga's streak was more impressive than Goldberg's...  EDIT: I see what you're saying about my comparing their achievements, but comparing either guy to Goldberg is really bad...Goldberg was the guy with THE streak...Back then no-one had an undefeated streak, well, except Tatanka but we won't bring him into it...The point is, people don't buy into undefeated streaks nearly as much anymore...I mean, look at this discussion... What they could do with Joe (and I think they may have started) is stop saying "he's undefeated" and say "he's never been beaten"... By the way, as I also said, Joe is/was a heel (not sure anymore) and got all his wins without outside interference...Umaga COULD have easily done the same, but his character has been written as a pet...He's useless without Estrada there, and that's likely how he'll end up losing... |
|
|
|
Post by Talison on Aug 26, 2006 10:54:37 GMT -5
Remember that time when that one team won the Super bowl but every other team in the playoffs didn't "lose", they just didn't "win"? This isn't even a little similar to a Triple Threat match. It would work if we were talking about a tournament, bit even then their would be looses in the individual matches. But we aren't talking about a tournament. Wrestling is the only "sport" I can think of that can have more than two opposing sides in the same match up. So it does bring up questions. I'm not arguing that not being pinned in a triple threat shouldn't count as a loss. I'm saying that I understand why someone would think that way. At any rate I'm undecided on the matter. But it is why non-elimination triple threats bother me. For example, The Rock won the Undisputed Title from The Undertake by pinning Kurt Angle in a Triple Threat. The rules of a Triple Threat state this can happen, storyline wise it's almost the only reason to have a Triple Threat. Bookers use it to move a belt from one person to another without the current champ being pinned, therefore leaving doubt the new Champion could have won strait up and keeping the momentum of the old Champion. If this were not the case, why else would announcers continually stress when a Champion looses this way that he wasn't involved in the fall? They continued to build Kurt Angle as nearly unstoppable after he lost two titles to Benoit & Jericho without ever being pinned. It's a matter of a Champion no longer needing a belt to get over, but a strait up loss hurting him too much. The Triple Threat is sort of the cover all situation. Anymore in a Triple Threat Title match I know the Title will change hands and I know the Champion will not be involved in the fall. It's rarely not the case. So I think it's easy to see why some don't see it as a loss. The story is almost telling you, "he'd still be champ accept for a rule none of us agree with, but is none the less a rule," as I have frequently heard announcers mourn and lament a poor Champion who is booked in a Triple Threat. Anyway, I wasn't defending Joe. I didn't see the PPV but as I said I have only heard him called "Unpinned and having never submitted," as of late. I stand by my statement that both should loose soon as the longer it takes to loose the more damaging the one loss will be. Athletes loose matches from time to time, It happens. When you build a guy on nothing but being undefeated, when he looses he has nothing regardless of his performances and ability to reestablish himself. If I was a wrestler I'd rather be dominant with the occasional loss than undefeated. How you deal with a loss or setback defines you more than never having to face it. |
|
|
|
Post by Talison on Aug 26, 2006 10:58:31 GMT -5
Also, just to give credit to TNA, Estrada's breaking his cigar as a sign for Umaga to rage is way to similar to James Mitchell's "Click Doomsday" routine with Abyss. By to similar I mean one is a blatant copy of the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by offspring515 on Aug 26, 2006 11:06:06 GMT -5
I'm actually not a Samoa Joe fan, but I'm also not going to spend my time trying to flame people who are for seemingly no reason...
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Aug 26, 2006 12:35:09 GMT -5
Remember that time when that one team won the Super bowl but every other team in the playoffs didn't "lose", they just didn't "win"? For example, The Rock won the Undisputed Title from The Undertake by pinning Kurt Angle in a Triple Threat. The rules of a Triple Threat state this can happen, storyline wise it's almost the only reason to have a Triple Threat. Bookers use it to move a belt from one person to another without the current champ being pinned, therefore leaving doubt the new Champion could have won strait up and keeping the momentum of the old Champion. You're really over-analyzing this... When a champion is in a triple threat match and after that match is over, he is not the champion anymore, he LOST. He didn't "not win the title" he already held... He lost. Lost the title, lost the match. Not undefeated anymore. Not unbeaten anymore. He lost. That's all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Aug 26, 2006 12:46:51 GMT -5
By the way, as I also said, Joe is/was a heel (not sure anymore) and got all his wins without outside interference...Umaga COULD have easily done the same... No.1) TNA is a fed filled with 98% of guys who are nobody's...there is no reason for Joe NOT to go over anyone in that fed clean (heel or not) if they are planning on building around him... No.2) Umaga could NOT have easily done the same...Umaga goes over Cena, HBK, and HHH clean in 3 straight weeks and from a business stand-point that makes sense to you? Again, you are over-analyzing things too much... It's all simple, right there in front of you to see. Superstar faces don't lose clean, and when they lose to heels, they lose because the heel cheated. It's called pro wrestling. Might want to check it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Aug 26, 2006 13:47:22 GMT -5
Well there is a fine line between cheating and having help...Kurt Angle won most of his Heel matches without Help...Big Show, same...Brock Lesner...Triple H won LOTS of his Heel matches clean, and he also won lots of them by hitting people with a sledge hammer...He's also won by outside interference circa Evolution/Flair...For a Heel to win by cheating is one thing, but having help from 3 guys does kinda take away from the win...Heck, Jim Ross can beat Umaga...
Umaga cleanly going over Cena HBK and Triple H would make him THE monster heel if done correctly...By "done correctly" I mean, if Umaga was the focus of any of those matches...But he wasn't...None of those wins had anything to do with Umaga, they had to do with the guys that interfered on his behalf...If they were specifically building Umaga then he would have won his matches with just interference by his manager, which would have been awesome wins...but they weren't building Umaga; they were building Edge/Cena, and D-X/McMahons...
And from a business standpoint, Yes, if I want Umaga to be THE monster heel in the WWE, I have him go over all three without extra help (as in beyond Estrada)...
|
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on Aug 26, 2006 15:21:05 GMT -5
It's called pro wrestling. Might want to check it out. Yeah you might want to do the same.  |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Aug 26, 2006 16:00:34 GMT -5
Well there is a fine line between cheating and having help...Kurt Angle won most of his Heel matches without Help...Big Show, same...Brock Lesner...Triple H won LOTS of his Heel matches clean, and he also won lots of them by hitting people with a sledge hammer...He's also won by outside interference circa Evolution/Flair...For a Heel to win by cheating is one thing, but having help from 3 guys does kinda take away from the win... It's because you feel the need to grossly over-analyze EVERYTHING that you are not getting what I'm saying. I can't help you with that... Heck, Jim Ross can beat Umaga... But he hasn't. I'd like to see you keep more "on topic" and try to use better examples when trying to prove your point. You have passion, but you have no direction, at all... We're talking about HHH, Cena, and HBK. Not a 60 yr.old out of shape announcer with (God Bless him) Bells Palsy... Let's keep things in perspective ok? Umaga cleanly going over Cena HBK and Triple H would make him THE monster heel if done correctly... Then what? What possible big money pay-off matches would that set up for the future if Umaga beats Cena and both of DX clean the first time he fights them? I'm begging you to explain this to me. Cause now, you can put the belt on Umaga and get 3 strong buy-rates on PPV's putting him vs. HBK, Cena, and HHH, obviously the card vs. the third opponent the final pay-off, if you wanted too. You have 3 huge faces trying to avenge their losses to Umaga, who also now has the belt... and they can promote it that Umaga had "help" the first time he beat them... it's called "booking". No doubt you will respond with the names of nearly every single heel wrestler who ever didn't have to cheat vs. an opponent he later faced... I patiently wait ready to poke my eyes out at the sight of it... By "done correctly" I mean, if Umaga was the focus of any of those matches...But he wasn't...None of those wins had anything to do with Umaga, they had to do with the guys that interfered on his behalf... Really? So if "none of those wins had anything to do with Umaga" why was he in the matches? Oh yeah, because those wins were about him too... If they were specifically building Umaga then he would have won his matches... Again, in "pro wrestling", often (stay with me here) they actually build multiple angles and stories at the same time! Sometimes in the same match! Crazy! And from a business standpoint, Yes, if I want Umaga to be THE monster heel in the WWE, I have him go over all three without extra help (as in beyond Estrada)... Yes, because it is good business to make your Top 3 faces in the entire fed look like p***ies. S***, that's how Hogan, Rock and Austin have stayed so over for so many years  man do I have a headache. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Aug 26, 2006 16:00:59 GMT -5
It's called pro wrestling. Might want to check it out. Yeah you might want to do the same. My 8 year old sister called. She wants her burn back. |
|
