Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 7:51 pm
I hope Randall doesn’t shit in bathtubs, despite his massive frame
The Darts Forum
Darts Forum The Darts Forum Darts Forums Darts PDC Darts BDO Darts Darts Players Darts Fans, Talk About Darts Best Double Finishes Phil Taylor Double Finishes darts forum, dartscorner, darts reviews, darts practice tips, buy darts, swap darts, vintage
https://www.thedartsforum.com/
The Pro Wrestling Thread Sponsored by Bob Ross.
Page 8 of 62
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 7:54 pm
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:06 pm
Never really seen any Andre interviews, whether in character or notsennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 7:54 pmSame cheerful attitude.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:08 pm
Saw a few. Complete lack of charisma. Seemed like a nice bloke though.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:31 pm
When you’re a huge unit like he is, you don’t need much charismaRoss, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:08 pmSaw a few. Complete lack of charisma. Seemed like a nice bloke though.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:36 pm
Well you do actually. It's not difficult to find some tall cunt to wrestle.
Take that South American thing Giant Gonzalez. Tall like a redwood tree but utter shit in the ring and a complete lack of presence.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:47 pm
Well, yesRoss, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:36 pmWell you do actually. It's not difficult to find some tall cunt to wrestle.
Take that South American thing Giant Gonzalez. Tall like a redwood tree but utter shit in the ring and a complete lack of presence.
That cunt was useless but look at someone like the Big Show
Fucking unit but not that much charisma
Same with The Great Khali
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:49 pm
Every wrestler needs charisma. Charisma = appeal.
I also don't think that size automatically = appeal. It helps sure.
But if size on its own = appeal, then Heidenreich, Matt Morgan and indeed Giant Gonzalez would have become massive stars.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:52 pm
Be careful not to confuse charisma with a gimmick.Jimmi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:47 pmWell, yesRoss, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:36 pmWell you do actually. It's not difficult to find some tall cunt to wrestle.
Take that South American thing Giant Gonzalez. Tall like a redwood tree but utter shit in the ring and a complete lack of presence.
That cunt was useless but look at someone like the Big Show
Fucking unit but not that much charisma
Same with The Great Khali
In my opinion Undertaker for example doesn't ooze charisma, but he had a very good gimmick.
When a wrestler doesn't have either, it's shit.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:57 pm
From what I've read Taker was mostly just a gimmick in the early to mid 1990s. He didn't work a crowd during his matches especially well.
However, based on his matches with Foley I've recently watched from 96-97, and his matches with Orton and Batista from the 2000s, he did develop into a performer who could work a very good match.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:59 pm
Size = appeal in Vince McMahon’s eyessennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:49 pmEvery wrestler needs charisma. Charisma = appeal.
I also don't think that size automatically = appeal. It helps sure.
But if size on its own = appeal, then Heidenreich, Matt Morgan and indeed Giant Gonzalez would have become massive stars.
Heidenreich
fucking hellGiant Gonzalez was awful out of those three but Andre would have been an attraction back in the day because most people wouldn’t have seen a man of his statue
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:01 pm
Undertaker was more “aura” than “charisma”Ross, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:52 pmBe careful not to confuse charisma with a gimmick.Jimmi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:47 pmWell, yes
That cunt was useless but look at someone like the Big Show
Fucking unit but not that much charisma
Same with The Great Khali
In my opinion Undertaker for example doesn't ooze charisma, but he had a very good gimmick.
When a wrestler doesn't have either, it's shit.
He has this unique aura about his character
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pm
sennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:49 pmEvery wrestler needs charisma. Charisma = appeal.
I also don't think that size automatically = appeal. It helps sure.
But if size on its own = appeal, then Heidenreich, Matt Morgan and indeed Giant Gonzalez would have become massive stars.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pm
I'm no expert in Undertaker's career (I know it's fucking long though). From what I've seen I get the idea he perfected his gimmick through the years.sennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:57 pmFrom what I've read Taker was mostly just a gimmick in the early to mid 1990s. He didn't work a crowd during his matches especially well.
However, based on his matches with Foley I've recently watched from 96-97, and his matches with Orton and Batista from the 2000s, he did develop into a performer who could work a very good match.
Like I wrote earlier though, when he starts talking I'm not particularly impressed. His (perfected) gimmick makes up for his lack of charisma imo.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pm
Yes, when he talks, he doesn’t ooze charisma (at least not in the original incarnation of The Undertaker Character) but he did have Paul Bearer for a long time to do the talking for himRoss, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pmI'm no expert in Undertaker's career (I know it's fucking long though). From what I've seen I get the idea he perfected his gimmick through the years.sennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:57 pmFrom what I've read Taker was mostly just a gimmick in the early to mid 1990s. He didn't work a crowd during his matches especially well.
However, based on his matches with Foley I've recently watched from 96-97, and his matches with Orton and Batista from the 2000s, he did develop into a performer who could work a very good match.
Like I wrote earlier though, when he starts talking I'm not particularly impressed. His (perfected) gimmick makes up for his lack of charisma imo.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:03 pm
What you call aura I call gimmick.Jimmi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:01 pmUndertaker was more “aura” than “charisma”Ross, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:52 pmBe careful not to confuse charisma with a gimmick.Jimmi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:47 pmWell, yes
That cunt was useless but look at someone like the Big Show
Fucking unit but not that much charisma
Same with The Great Khali
In my opinion Undertaker for example doesn't ooze charisma, but he had a very good gimmick.
When a wrestler doesn't have either, it's shit.
He has this unique aura about his character
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:03 pm
Is that the cunt walking around with the urn?Jimmi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pmYes, when he talks, he doesn’t ooze charisma but he did have Paul Bearer for a long time to do the talking for himRoss, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pmI'm no expert in Undertaker's career (I know it's fucking long though). From what I've seen I get the idea he perfected his gimmick through the years.sennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:57 pmFrom what I've read Taker was mostly just a gimmick in the early to mid 1990s. He didn't work a crowd during his matches especially well.
However, based on his matches with Foley I've recently watched from 96-97, and his matches with Orton and Batista from the 2000s, he did develop into a performer who could work a very good match.
Like I wrote earlier though, when he starts talking I'm not particularly impressed. His (perfected) gimmick makes up for his lack of charisma imo.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:04 pm
YeahRoss, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:03 pmIs that the cunt walking around with the urn?Jimmi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pmYes, when he talks, he doesn’t ooze charisma but he did have Paul Bearer for a long time to do the talking for himRoss, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pmI'm no expert in Undertaker's career (I know it's fucking long though). From what I've seen I get the idea he perfected his gimmick through the years.sennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:57 pmFrom what I've read Taker was mostly just a gimmick in the early to mid 1990s. He didn't work a crowd during his matches especially well.
However, based on his matches with Foley I've recently watched from 96-97, and his matches with Orton and Batista from the 2000s, he did develop into a performer who could work a very good match.
Like I wrote earlier though, when he starts talking I'm not particularly impressed. His (perfected) gimmick makes up for his lack of charisma imo.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:05 pm
I'm not sure if it holds up, but I enjoyed his heel character in late 2001 and early 2002, even if his matches with Hogan, Flair and Austin during that period were tripe.Ross, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pm
I'm no expert in Undertaker's career (I know it's fucking long though). From what I've seen I get the idea he perfected his gimmick through the years.
Like I wrote earlier though, when he starts talking I'm not particularly impressed. His (perfected) gimmick makes up for his lack of charisma imo.
I agree that he wasn't much of a promo guy otherwise.
Re: Pro Wrestling
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:13 pm
I'm not knowledgeable enough when it comes to those details. Will be a matter of time though, once you start watching it, YouTube keeps feeding me the same shit.sennafan24 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:05 pmI'm not sure if it holds up, but I enjoyed his heel character in late 2001 and early 2002, even if his matches with Hogan, Flair and Austin during that period were tripe.Ross, Bob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:02 pm
I'm no expert in Undertaker's career (I know it's fucking long though). From what I've seen I get the idea he perfected his gimmick through the years.
Like I wrote earlier though, when he starts talking I'm not particularly impressed. His (perfected) gimmick makes up for his lack of charisma imo.
I agree that he wasn't much of a promo guy otherwise.