Board 8 > All-Purpose Wrestling Topic 399: Browser - DELETE your last viewed, Paige

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Selling can be totally subjective. For example, some people love Dolph's selling. Some people HATE it.

Or Shawn Michaels selling for Hogan in 2005.
---

I mean, if things like "technical ability" or "aerial ability" are objective, why are we voting for who is best at it in the Observer awards?
---

the manner of selling is pretty subjective yeah

but some people simply don't sell AT ALL

can we at least agree that's objectively bad?
---

Well some people now argue that not selling is a form of selling.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I mean, if things like "technical ability" or "aerial ability" are objective, why are we voting for who is best at it in the Observer awards?

As Extha said, it's intuitive. Duh. People are just voting wrong.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

the manner of selling is pretty subjective yeah

but some people simply don't sell AT ALL

can we at least agree that's objectively bad?

There are times when that's appropriate such as early Undertaker, or Strowman shrugging off weakings.

If you sell in such a way that hurts the suspension of disbelief, that's bad, yeah.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

He can jump off a rope and perform an elbow. So can I. Can I argue that I'm just as skilled as AJ Styles just because we can both do something?

You can type on a computer and produce words. So can a court recorder. Can you argue that you're just as skilled as a court recorder at typing just because you can both do it?

Jakyl25 posted...

I mean, if things like "technical ability" or "aerial ability" are objective, why are we voting for who is best at it in the Observer awards?

because once the objective aspects are completed the subjective parts come out more. Ricochet, Ospreay, Swann, and Neville can for the most part do each other's aerial moves and maneuvers. how much it's employed, how well it's employed, these are questions to ask for award purposes. generally any argument claiming that AJ isn't as good a high flyer as them is because he's not capable as them. he doesn't have the skill they do. that's objective. however if you think he mixes it better, you can say that in spite of lacking ability, he's the better flyer. that's subjective.

once you hit the point where we're talking the high end of awards we ain't really arguing any objective points anymore, that's done.
---

Wanglicious posted...

You can type on a computer and produce words. So can a court recorder. Can you argue that you're just as skilled as a court recorder at typing just because you can both do it?

We have clear measurable ways of determining how good of a court recorder someone is. Words per minute, accuracy of what's written vs what's spoken, etc.

How do you measure if my springboard forearm is better than AJ's other than subjective concepts (how clean it looks, does it look like I hit him, etc)?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

How do you measure if my springboard forearm is better than AJ's other than subjective concepts (how clean it looks, does it look like I hit him, etc)?

this is a different argument from what's been said. i specifically stated high flying ability, not springboard forearm. word for word:

Wanglicious posted...

you can question the value of each of those but if you're talking high flying ability it's objective to say that he regularly performs a 450 and uses various jumping or leaping maneuvers.

high flying ability - the category - would be something you can have objective details in. there can be certain objective analysis over it. since you just went straight towards trying to define one particular example, i assume you therefore must agree with that.

once you narrow the choice to more specific areas sure, subjectivity creeps in and grows. your example still isn't completely there mind you (e.g., if you consistently miss the target area then you are worse at performing it) but as you get further into specific analysis and individual performance, subjectivity grows.

gotta remember that your position was just this:

TheRock1525 posted...

"AJ Styles is a wrestler, also called "superstar," for the WWE. He performs wrestling moves in a ring such as various strikes, lifting moves, submissions, and moves from the top rope. He sometimes wins matches and he sometimes loses matches. He has long hair and wears long tights and gloves. He has entrance music."

what i'm doing is expanding on what's written. various strikes? lifting moves? submissions? moves from the top rope?
if you detail them with specifics, if you categorize them, suddenly the bio looks a lot more interesting. you can also include other aspects like health, injuries, etc - these would be objective aspects detailing what he's capable of.

edit:
and bear in mind, typing is a skill. so too is delivering a springboard forearm. you can have subjective aspects to both (e.g., the way a person types/leaps) but there will be some objective parts to it as well (e.g., the accuracy of the words/strike). which is normal. you don't need to "assume any of this is a skill" as you put it, this is one.
---

ffmasterjose posted...

They f***ed up Sasha so much after her main roster debut

Her Mic ability has been laughably bad.

Like....horribly bad. She has been supplied some real losers in terms if lines and situations - but so has Charlotte. She has adapted in ways that protect herself which is what the people who succeed under Vince do - survive the bad ideas, knock the good ones out of the park.

She may in fact be more skilled but Charlotte is better at the WWE and considering sasha would be pretty low tier at an actual womens promotion or joshi promotion it really doesnt matter what her theoretical ceiling is because shes well below all manner of celings and barriers right now.

Honestly Bayley is handling her bad writing a whole lot better and has a better long term set of prosects than Sasha but Charlotte is gonna be the cream of tbat division for a long time even if she didnt desrrve it when wwe began treating her that way
---

bayley is handling it better because she's not given a rocket on a rocket. they tempered expectations with her hard and in the long run this should pay off a bit.

sasha though, wwe just went "hey they keep saying they want sasha!'
then you had articles, newscasters, her being in top 10 wrestler list after top 10 wrestler list, so they just kept going with it. fans hyped her up, outlets hyped her up, so wwe pushed her like that.

and then it crashed. fortunately heel Sasha seems to be coming soon and she should gain back some of that value.
---

Pretty sure Bayley had a much stronger initial push than Sasha.

How long was she stuck in Team BAD again?
---

Debuted in July

Singles push started at the Rumble
---

Btw, the ability to deliver a springboard forearm is not a skill. The ability to deliver a springboard forearm WELL is. Same as the ability to type. I can type. A baby can type. A cat walking across a keyboard can type. None of those are skills.
---

...springboard forearm requires the skill of doing a springboard in the first place.

not sure the type example works either unless your definition of "type" is just "hit keys on a keyboard." if you have the idea that it's writing words, neither the baby nor the cat can. or an adult on a keyboard in a different language, for that matter. this would be like saying "i'm not illiterate because i can scribble things with a pencil." no, you don't have the skill of reading or the skill of writing. same idea. these are all things you learn, as opposed to "pick up a block of wood."
---

Eddv posted...

ffmasterjose posted...

They f***ed up Sasha so much after her main roster debut

Her Mic ability has been laughably bad.

Like....horribly bad. She has been supplied some real losers in terms if lines and situations - but so has Charlotte. She has adapted in ways that protect herself which is what the people who succeed under Vince do - survive the bad ideas, knock the good ones out of the park.

She may in fact be more skilled but Charlotte is better at the WWE and considering sasha would be pretty low tier at an actual womens promotion or joshi promotion it really doesnt matter what her theoretical ceiling is because shes well below all manner of celings and barriers right now.

Honestly Bayley is handling her bad writing a whole lot better and has a better long term set of prosects than Sasha but Charlotte is gonna be the cream of tbat division for a long time even if she didnt desrrve it when wwe began treating her that way

CAUSE SHES A HEEL!!!

Her gimmick is literally that she is the boss.... how the hell do you make that a face? You don't, unless you are f***ing WWE.
---

Wanglicious posted...

...springboard forearm requires the skill of doing a springboard in the first place.

To do it well, yes. Any idiot with functional legs and not an abnormal can do a springboard. And keep in mind that a springboard doesn't require anything other than jumping up on the top rope and ending up in the ring.

So if I stand on the edge of the outside of a ring, jump and pull myself up onto the top rope, then fall into the ring while making a motion with my forearm, I have objectively performed a springboard forearm. There is literally nothing objectively different. Whole bunch of subjective parts though (cleanness of the spring off the top rope, proximity of the forearm to my opponent while still protecting, believably to contact, etc).

If you want go simpler, there's the DDT. There's two objective attributes to a standard DDT: grabbing your opponent in a front facelock, and falling backwards. Congrats, if you do those two things you are objectively as good at delivering a DDT as anyone in the WWE. What makes a DDT good is a bunch of other subjective things.
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

Eddv posted...

ffmasterjose posted...

They f***ed up Sasha so much after her main roster debut

Her Mic ability has been laughably bad.

Like....horribly bad. She has been supplied some real losers in terms if lines and situations - but so has Charlotte. She has adapted in ways that protect herself which is what the people who succeed under Vince do - survive the bad ideas, knock the good ones out of the park.

She may in fact be more skilled but Charlotte is better at the WWE and considering sasha would be pretty low tier at an actual womens promotion or joshi promotion it really doesnt matter what her theoretical ceiling is because shes well below all manner of celings and barriers right now.

Honestly Bayley is handling her bad writing a whole lot better and has a better long term set of prosects than Sasha but Charlotte is gonna be the cream of tbat division for a long time even if she didnt desrrve it when wwe began treating her that way

CAUSE SHES A HEEL!!!

Her gimmick is literally that she is the boss.... how the hell do you make that a face? You don't, unless you are f***ing WWE.

You make it a face because people are cheering for her. Blame fans for the fact that when she was a heel with Team BAD doing heelish things they still felt the need to cheer for her.
---

AJ Styles is locked in a room with a single line of tightly wound steel cable. He receives instructions under the door reading "Forearm" in Chinese but must decipher how to flippydoo through nothing but a convenient bookshelf with translation texts. Can it be said he really knows how to flippydoo!?
---

One more reason why traditional face/heel dynamics should go away forever.
---

NBIceman posted...

One more reason why traditional face/heel dynamics should go away forever.

I go back and forth on this...
---

TheRock1525 posted...

To do it well, yes. Any idiot with functional legs and not an abnormal can do a springboard. And keep in mind that a springboard doesn't require anything other than jumping up on the top rope and ending up in the ring.

no, a springboard requires you to jump on the top rope and, using it like a spring, launch yourself off it off it. doesn't need to be into the ring either. that is a lot more difficult than simply "any idiot with functional legs" as it involves balance and timing. if you get to the top and slip/"happen to fall in the ring," no, you didn't do a springboard anything. you tried to and you failed. you did not perform the actual move. it's a learned skill.
---

Objectively, you did.
---

you quite literally didn't.
---

You quite literally did.
---

so this is your way of saying you don't have an actual argument eh?
---

I already said my argument and explained what objectively makes a springboard a springboard and why anyone can theoretically do it but only few people do it well, and that's subjective.

We spent months watching John Cena do a s***ty springboard stunner and years watching CM Punk's suspect springboard clothesline. But objectively both were springboard moves.
---

this is probably the dumbest conversation this topic has had since "punk isnt heel hes just anti-cena"
---

Objectively, Tex Ferguson is the best wrestler in the world.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Objectively, Tex Ferguson is the best wrestler in the world.

I'd have to disagree on account of both eyes being blinded and his right arm not working.

And the broken legs.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

and explained what objectively makes a springboard a springboard

yeah and the problem is what you said isn't an actual springboard. your definition is bad and takes away the skill based parts of it.

TheRock1525 posted...

We spent months watching John Cena do a s***ty springboard stunner and years watching CM Punk's suspect springboard clothesline. But objectively both were springboard moves.

well yeah, they were. like for a common example, if someone's attempting a springboard move during a match and the top rope is shaken, causing them to lose their balance and crumple in the ring, that's not a springboard. you're saying it is. nobody would call it this. it's a failed attempt of one and does not meet the definition.


SmartMuffin posted...

this is probably the dumbest conversation this topic has had since "punk isnt heel hes just anti-cena"

well hey, he only wants to respond to the edited two sentences and not to the actual point. not much i can do about that, though it'd be nice to have outright admission that citing high flying ability and technical wrestling would be part of an objective analysis of a wrestler.
---

It's IN THE NAME

SPRINGboard. You have to bounce off the rope.

If you just touch the rope and then fall, you OBJECTIVELY did not do a spring board anything, cause you didn't "spring" at all.
---

Fine whatever. It literally changes nothing about my point about there being no objectivity in wrestling but sure, take your win I guess. Something that a large portion of the roster can do is such a unique skill that proves exactly nothing.
---

Objectively, wrestling is better now then ever before. The aggregate scores for matches across the board have increased, and a popular overall consensus results in a historical indicator that can be tracked over time demonstrating this. Objectivity in a historical sense.
---

I mean the whole point begin with has nothing to do with whether or not AJ Styles could do these things (he can), it's whether or not he does them well (which is subjective). Because there are other guys who can springboard so objectively they're just as good as Styles if we're taking subjective elements of wrestling, which is all of it.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Objectively, wrestling is better now then ever before. The aggregate scores for matches across the board have increased, and a popular overall consensus results in a historical indicator that can be tracked over time demonstrating this. Objectivity in a historical sense.

Pretty sure all those scores are based on people's subjective opinions.
---

you for sure see more great matches now than ever before

you also see some of the stupidest storylines and least inspired feuds
---

I mean, we used to get Booker T vs Edge over a shampoo commercial.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

Objectively, wrestling is better now then ever before. The aggregate scores for matches across the board have increased, and a popular overall consensus results in a historical indicator that can be tracked over time demonstrating this. Objectivity in a historical sense.

Pretty sure all those scores are based on people's subjective opinions.

You've honed in on the word you don't like and are failing to note that historical analysis over time is what I'm discussing. Fail more.
---

Whiskey_Nick posted...

you for sure see more great matches now than ever before

you also see some of the stupidest storylines and least inspired feuds

I said wrestling is better. I didn't say anything else was better.
---

I have not read 92% of the posts I just wanted to chip in
---

Oh, thought you were responding to my post.
---

honestly that's part of why i don't like it as a finisher that much! to a much greater extreme, same problem with bayley's belly to back. kind of subverting that is that i do like gallaher's corner dropkick. sure, most people in WWE can do a dropkick in the corner. his is just nice (subjective!) due to the way he sets up around it (subjective!), the impact (kinda both, though prob more subjective overall), and the height (objective, it's... just distance).

you can say that gallaher's a submission specialist, primarily focusing on multiple joint locks and moving different parts of the body into awkward and painful places. among his most commonly used techniques is wrapping his opponent up like a ball then kicking them to get them out of it. he uses some high impact moves, such as a headbutt, to either help get into the next hold or to help change the tempo of the match. his finisher is a running corner dropkick and his gimmick is being a british gentleman, complete with umbrella, tea, crumpets, and handlebar mustache.


that's all objective. it doesn't mean he's necessarily good at it or that you have to like it. but you can look at the above and go "okay, I can dig that," or "hm, not what i want to see" as you note the lack of high flying. similarly you can have wrestlers that are more CAW type wrestlers (Cody, Owens) where you can list a massive amount of things they can do, briefly get into their characters, etc, though that doesn't mean they're necessarily the best at anything, even argue that because they're CAW types they're inferior to the more specialized ones with a clear theme.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

Objectively, wrestling is better now then ever before. The aggregate scores for matches across the board have increased, and a popular overall consensus results in a historical indicator that can be tracked over time demonstrating this. Objectivity in a historical sense.

Pretty sure all those scores are based on people's subjective opinions.

You've honed in on the word you don't like and are failing to note that historical analysis over time is what I'm discussing. Fail more.

It's actually noting how people can say wrestling is better than ever and wrestling is worse than ever and the measurable attributes don't show much of anything.

Match ratings are better than ever! Wrestling's great!
TV ratings are worse than ever! Wrestling sucks!

Historical analysis focusing on individual's ratings, especially when said individuals are different from years ago or similar ones who might have changed their metrics on what makes a good match, does not an objective analysis make.
---

You should spoke of something that isn't wrestling as a measurement of wrestling.
---

this whole page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8VWoyJ2x9o
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

You should spoke of something that isn't wrestling as a measurement of wrestling.

How so?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean the whole point begin with has nothing to do with whether or not AJ Styles could do these things (he can), it's whether or not he does them well (which is subjective).

<_< i still have MWC on ignore and keep it that way so if there's anything in that related to this, i don't know it. i do know that you just gave two extremes, one being a very dry description of AJ Styles and one being a very colorful one.

what i said is that if you're being objective you should also include technical ability, high flying ability, different styles he's able to adapt to, how good he is at selling, etc. and even if you object to the way i phrased the last one, simply having the ability to sell in the first place can be a skill worth pointing out. either way, it's not like that eliminates any other descriptor you can give him and that can detail his bio much, much better than the dry two line bit you gave.

there really shouldn't be any reason you'd argue against me on that since it largely expands on what's there and you can continue to expand on it citing different moves, accomplishments, injuries, etc. it just doesn't come off as dull and boring.
---

The whole argument started because MWC insisted Sasha was objectively better than Charlotte.

I rightfully called it out, and then pointed out how "objective" analysis of wrestlers would look.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

You should spoke of something that isn't wrestling as a measurement of wrestling.

How so?

Ratings are a measurement of viewership and do not speak primarily to the quality of a match. Viewership is influenced by a variety of factors, most of which have nothing to do with the match quality itself. One independent variable can be influenced outside of matches - it is demonstrable to prove that, for example, during the Seth Rollins promo two weeks ago, viewership decreased. This had little to do with the wrestling since there was no active wrestling in that segment. This had to do with booking and promotion of wrestling. That is a vastly different concept. Analysis of booking and promotion can be quantifiably judged, and so can analysis of wrestling itself. There is a difference between what is of high quality and what is something I like. It's why The Godfather is a high quality film one can consider great, yet be a film I never want to watch again. There are certain qualities which can be personally subjective and yet concretely objective in terms of art. The two are in fact not mutually inclusive.
---