Time to Boycott ROH cuase of there owners

[Eduardo]

 

 

 

 

 

You are wrong about Rey and Eddy, but that seems more obvious.

no im not they were bith born in the us ie there not JCC like at all you are were your born eddie was born in texas rey in san diego, so yes there more like oscar than JCC who made Mistico a compere too someone born in mexico ocsar i wager was hero to Latin fans but you will never see him on list of top mexican boxers of all time

cuase i one huge reason he was not born in mexico nor were rey and eddie and this is the same reason i will never have eddie ot rey listed as top mexican worker of all time

 

Woooosh

 

Wait, so Eddie and Rey aren't really Mexican because they were born in America? Ummm, Texas and California WERE Mexico for a long time, for one thing. The other thing is, "What the fuck?"

Why is the "Japanese" guy suddenly an expert on the feelings of "Latin" fans?

 

 

I'm not really sure what shodate's complete arguments are here, but there is some truth to what he's attempting to say in at least one aspect. A big reason why Cain Velasquez struggled really connecting with the fanbase in Mexico was because he was American born and struggled to talk Spanish. It was an ongoing joke with so many of my friends about how a Southwestern Chicano was being framed as a Mexican star by the UFC. Also it was a really forced attempt at creating a "Mexican star" that rung hollow and revealed that UFC didn't really understand these nuances.

 

Shodate is on to something about how boxing has a better understanding on the nuances of regional Mexican vs Chicanos than wrestling and MMA. I knfow we probably saw this in the 1970s with feuds Jose Lothario was involved in but modern day wrestling you'd never see something like Juan Manuel Marquez vs Juan Diaz, where a part of the feud was someone from Mexico going up against a Houston Chicano.

 

Not sure if the examples (Eddy, Rey, Mistico) he is using would be what I would use and don't agree with some other stuff, but there is something to what he is saying about Julio Cesar Chavez and Oscar de la Hoya and the different demographics they were heroes to.

 

what do you disagree with id will debate you on them point too

 

and thank for backing me up on the ocser and JCC things

 

 

There is a lot of points to get to here, but one point I would address is this one:

 

 

 

Rey and eddie were midcarders more than anything even as champs based on booking

 

I think in Feb. 2004 there genuinely was a very conscious effort from WWE in trying to get Eddy Guerrero over as a main eventer, and don't believe at all that the company saw him as a mid-carder at that point. Pretty much all of Smackdown from late Jan. 2004 to June or July 2004 was built around Guerrero.

 

When it came to the way some issues were handled, Smackdown was pretty decent and progressive at the time, more so than other periods of WWE. I say some, not at all, 'cause there was some really bad stuff on there, especially with how storylines involving women were handled. It was surprising how pro-immigrant those few months were, how the top babyfaces in the company were very much pro-undocumented immigrant, with them even realising a rap song, which was bad and corny, but was pro-crossing borders. The top heels that Guerrero were facing were:

 

Brock Lesnar: Known homophobe who made fun of Mexicans and shamed Guerrero's addiction. Later also paid off when Cain Velasquez beat him up in the UFC.

 

Kurt Angle: He policed the idea of who can really be an "American", who can really be a representative for a company like WWE, and whose whole spiel was about respectability politics, and like Lesnar, also used Guerrero's addiction to shame him.

 

JBL: Rich, white Texan turned New Yorker, who was literally on Fox News; a ruthless capitalist who assaulted undocumented immigrants who were trying to cross the Mex-Tex border in Laredo. Also 'caused Herlinda Guerrero to faint in El Paso.

 

Paul Heyman: Also was spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric.

 

This was a lot more interesting and better than how WWE handled the Jinder Mahal angle last year where Mahal was painted as a bad guy for just wanting more diversity and being proud of his heritage, while Randy Orton of all people was portrayed as the babyface. At least in 2004, WWE tried something different with it's main event programs.

 

Obviously WWE wasn't doing it because it was the right thing or anything, but because they had picked up how much Guerrero was moving ratings and how a large portion of those people that were tuning in for Guerrero were from immigrant families or mixed-status families, where the characters of Lesnar, Angle, Heyman, and JBL, and the politics they have, were the true enemy. Guerrero, both the person and the character, was a dude from the border, who struggled with addiction and mental illness issues, like so many Chicano men from the border, and Lesnar, Angle, Heyman, and JBL were doing everything in their power to fuck with him.

[shodate]

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are wrong about Rey and Eddy, but that seems more obvious.

no im not they were bith born in the us ie there not JCC like at all you are were your born eddie was born in texas rey in san diego, so yes there more like oscar than JCC who made Mistico a compere too someone born in mexico ocsar i wager was hero to Latin fans but you will never see him on list of top mexican boxers of all time

cuase i one huge reason he was not born in mexico nor were rey and eddie and this is the same reason i will never have eddie ot rey listed as top mexican worker of all time

 

Woooosh

 

Wait, so Eddie and Rey aren't really Mexican because they were born in America? Ummm, Texas and California WERE Mexico for a long time, for one thing. The other thing is, "What the fuck?"

Why is the "Japanese" guy suddenly an expert on the feelings of "Latin" fans?

 

 

I'm not really sure what shodate's complete arguments are here, but there is some truth to what he's attempting to say in at least one aspect. A big reason why Cain Velasquez struggled really connecting with the fanbase in Mexico was because he was American born and struggled to talk Spanish. It was an ongoing joke with so many of my friends about how a Southwestern Chicano was being framed as a Mexican star by the UFC. Also it was a really forced attempt at creating a "Mexican star" that rung hollow and revealed that UFC didn't really understand these nuances.

 

Shodate is on to something about how boxing has a better understanding on the nuances of regional Mexican vs Chicanos than wrestling and MMA. I knfow we probably saw this in the 1970s with feuds Jose Lothario was involved in but modern day wrestling you'd never see something like Juan Manuel Marquez vs Juan Diaz, where a part of the feud was someone from Mexico going up against a Houston Chicano.

 

Not sure if the examples (Eddy, Rey, Mistico) he is using would be what I would use and don't agree with some other stuff, but there is something to what he is saying about Julio Cesar Chavez and Oscar de la Hoya and the different demographics they were heroes to.

 

what do you disagree with id will debate you on them point too

 

and thank for backing me up on the ocser and JCC things

 

 

There is a lot of points to get to here, but one point I would address is this one:

 

 

 

Rey and eddie were midcarders more than anything even as champs based on booking

 

I think in Feb. 2004 there genuinely was a very conscious effort from WWE in trying to get Eddy Guerrero over as a main eventer, and don't believe at all that the company saw him as a mid-carder at that point. Pretty much all of Smackdown from late Jan. 2004 to June or July 2004 was built around Guerrero.

 

When it came to the way some issues were handled, Smackdown was pretty decent and progressive at the time, more so than other periods of WWE. I say some, not at all, 'cause there was some really bad stuff on there, especially with how storylines involving women were handled. It was surprising how pro-immigrant those few months were, how the top babyfaces in the company were very much pro-undocumented immigrant, with them even realising a rap song, which was bad and corny, but was pro-crossing borders. The top heels that Guerrero were facing were:

 

Brock Lesnar: Known homophobe who made fun of Mexicans and shamed Guerrero's addiction. Later also paid off when Cain Velasquez beat him up in the UFC.

 

Kurt Angle: He policed the idea of who can really be an "American", who can really be a representative for a company like WWE, and whose whole spiel was about respectability politics, and like Lesnar, also used Guerrero's addiction to shame him.

 

JBL: Rich, white Texan turned New Yorker, who was literally on Fox News; a ruthless capitalist who assaulted undocumented immigrants who were trying to cross the Mex-Tex border in Laredo. Also 'caused Herlinda Guerrero to faint in El Paso.

 

Paul Heyman: Also was spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric.

 

This was a lot more interesting and better than how WWE handled the Jinder Mahal angle last year where Mahal was painted as a bad guy for just wanting more diversity, while Randy Orton of all people was portrayed as the babyface. At least in 2004, WWE tried something different with it's main event programs and with getting Guerrero over.

 

Obviously WWE wasn't doing it because it was the right thing or anything, but because they had picked up how much Guerrero was moving ratings and how a large portion of those people that were tuning in for Guerrero were from immigrant families or mixed-status families, where the characters of Lesnar, Angle, Heyman, and JBL, and the politics they have, were the true enemy.

 

 

Eddie was over with the fans inspite of the booking and om sorry rey based o what iv seen of run he beat from pillar to post when he could have worked with the bigger guys like Punk did with jo make it about his better cadio over the bigger guy simple ir are i someone like Kali had better cardio than rey ray could have worked like measrto them matches

 

and also at best eddie was a half-caste gory's side[ atlest gory himself[ were the us born his mother was from the Llines family

while

rey i think all his family from alto not baha if you know what i mean rey even calls wwe his home just saying

[Eduardo]

I didn't get into Rey since Rey is a bit more complex case, and yes, WWE's booking of Rey was historically awful.

[shodate]

I didn't get into Rey since Rey is a bit more complex case, and yes, WWE's booking of Rey was historically awful.

eddie i little more lenient since his mother connections but to agree with about how i think the should book Sombra/Almas i would do that sice he could be wwe first fulll blooded Mexican star and hes i would tke JJC's old nickname and put it on almas hell to push even futher i know wwe would never do this but i would send ot the ot Mi General Zapata or even Hijos del Pueblo so he would connect ot the working class Mexicano population in the us

 

but that is just me right

[Jetlag]

 

He's just really sensitive about his art form. It all boils down to "Those evil hipster communists are ruining muh pro wrestling/video games/movies" etc.

my views have never been liked any were overall so parv hating them/me is nothing new and no here to ruin the art form he loves why would i ruin something i also hold dear

 

 

Hey, I do like your views Don't listen to the haters. And the same goes for Parv to.

[Herodes]

Shodate, if your views are being hated on by self-styled academic agents spewing the most generic me so angry alt-right, islamophobic shite (just what the internet was crying out for) and endorsing the likes of breitbart, infowars, Sam Harris and anne marie waters ffs, then just know that youre in the right. Especially humorous considering the source. The world doesnt need another prison paul droning on about islam, SJWs, cucks, red pills, socialists, SADIQ KHANS LONDON, Enoch was right, send immigrants back to where they came from etc but there is a gap for humorous reviews of early 90s wcw ppvs which would be more welcome

[JerryvonKramer]

Something tells me someone hasn’t done their homework.

[shodate]

Something tells me someone hasn’t done their homework.

i have done

[JerryvonKramer]

The ethos of this forum was always to watch footage before passing judgement.

 

I have seen your best of lists shodate, you've got people on there for whom there is very scant footage so I am doubtful of your claims.

[WingedEagle]

The ethos of this forum was always to watch footage before passing judgement.

 

I have seen your best of lists shodate, you've got people on there for whom there is very scant footage so I am doubtful of your claims.

 

JVK, what have you been watching lately? Haven't seen much in these parts. I'm also happy to hear about it here if it moves people away from what happened to this thread.

[JerryvonKramer]

Brody vs Bruno from 76, Boston Garden, Rocky Raymond on commentary.

[WingedEagle]

Yikes. Was Brody awful yet?

[Matt D]

Not to sugarcoat the current situation but I tend to like 76-78 Brody, before the face turn.

[Mad Dog]

I liked his tag team with Snuka.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

Brody vs Bruno from 76, Boston Garden, Rocky Raymond on commentary.

The greatest commentator.

[Loss]

The ethos of this forum was always to watch footage before passing judgement.

 

I have seen your best of lists shodate, you've got people on there for whom there is very scant footage so I am doubtful of your claims.

In many cases, the footage has been found and those who have watched what he likes, particularly Jetlag, speak highly of it.

[dawho5]

Could be that footage was easier to find in Japan.

[shodate]

The ethos of this forum was always to watch footage before passing judgement.

 

I have seen your best of lists shodate, you've got people on there for whom there is very scant footage so I am doubtful of your claims.

if you read my HOF topic i say some are there for historical reasons alone among not being other HOF's what do you mean very scant footage

such as whom what person who is not just in my hof for historical reasons ie anyone who debuts after 1970 is there very little footage of?

 

for Japanese worker who debuts after 1970 there is alot for mexico there uus sicne alot lucha guys have very long active time the only post-1970 debuts that i have listed in my HOF who may have a lack of footage for are European guys n but that pool is on the uptick now too

[GSR]

 

The ethos of this forum was always to watch footage before passing judgement.

 

I have seen your best of lists shodate, you've got people on there for whom there is very scant footage so I am doubtful of your claims.

if you read my HOF topic i say some are there for historical reasons alone among not being other HOF's what do you mean very scant footage

such as whom what person who is not just in my hof for historical reasons ie anyone who debuts after 1970 is there very little footage of?

 

He's referring to your 'Top workers' list where there are plenty of wrestler of whom there is little, if any footage of, and where you flat out admit some of your 'top workers' are there purely for historical reasons!

 

a few of the peiole in this list are also on here for historcal reasons i admit that Orville Brwon the first NWA Champion and by all acount iv read a for the time a top level worker

 

[shodate]

 

 

The ethos of this forum was always to watch footage before passing judgement.

 

I have seen your best of lists shodate, you've got people on there for whom there is very scant footage so I am doubtful of your claims.

if you read my HOF topic i say some are there for historical reasons alone among not being other HOF's what do you mean very scant footage

such as whom what person who is not just in my hof for historical reasons ie anyone who debuts after 1970 is there very little footage of?

 

He's referring to your 'Top workers' list where there are plenty of wrestler of whom there is little, if any footage of, and where you flat out admit some of your 'top workers' are there purely for historical reasons!

 

a few of the peiole in this list are also on here for historcal reasons i admit that Orville Brwon the first NWA Champion and by all acount iv read a for the time a top level worker

 

 

i know i adtotted that abd that is is also only in the first 100-85 in the list or in the honourable mentions

[peachchaos]

Could be that footage was easier to find in Japan.

 

Sure, but you'd have to actually be in Japan to find it.

[Edwin]

Also, comparing every worker ever to Volk Han is funnier than comparing every worker ever to Ted DiBiase, and he won't have any of that.

I also like the Undertaker and Yoshiaki Fujiwara longevity and the Usos and Crush Gals drawing power comparisons. Those two may peak the Volk Han technical ability comparisons.

 

Also, TIL Chono isn't Japanese and Rey and Eddie aren't Mexicans -- they're all Americans -- WCW fooled us by making us think they had a roster full of international stars, when in fact, they were all Americans.

 

With that said, this is a great thread -- from boycotting ROH it somehow ended up in an entirely different direction.

 

Kudos to shodate -- sure he can give threads and odd spin, but he's also very insightful when he decides to.

[shodate]

 

Also, comparing every worker ever to Volk Han is funnier than comparing every worker ever to Ted DiBiase, and he won't have any of that.

I also like the Undertaker and Yoshiaki Fujiwara longevity and the Usos and Crush Gals drawing power comparisons. Those two may peak the Volk Han technical ability comparisons.

 

Also, TIL Chono isn't Japanese and Rey and Eddie aren't Mexicans -- they're all Americans -- WCW fooled us by making us think they had a roster full of international stars, when in fact, they were all Americans.

 

With that said, this is a great thread -- from boycotting ROH it somehow ended up in an entirely different direction.

 

Kudos to shodate for being able to pull this off in the majority of threads he decides to participate in. thumbsupemoji

 

there Fair comparesions imho

 

two tag teams

Twi people with long active in-ring careers

 

i never derailed this topic its was others

 

and i never aim ot derail things

[NintendoLogic]

If JvK has been driven to the right, that's a pretty dire statement on the state of the left in the West. To hear them tell it, anything less than full communism is neoliberalism, which is indistinguishable from conservatism. It's crap like this that's going to get Trump reelected.

 

 

 

 

See, neoliberalism as described in this thread is essentially indistinguishable from conservatism (other than the diversity part, which historically has not been Vince McMahon's strong suit to say the least). The term has become basically meaningless. It's little more than an epithet used by leftists to describe anyone to their right.

 

That's entirely untrue if you actually understand what the term is meant to describe; that is, the change in the operation and organisation of capitalism that began in the 1970s and the logic of which was politically hegemonic for about 35 years.

 

 

Let me ask again. What exactly is the difference between neoliberalism and conservatism? Is it solely the the former is more socially tolerant?

 

 

Short answer: Yes, pretty much, generally speaking.

 

Long answer: Neoconservatives prefer to use weapons on their enemies and neoliberals would rather starve them to death, as someone here who I won't name in case he doesn't want to be dragged into this thread said to me once in a chat where we were discussing the term. The war in Afghanistan was started by a Republican President, escalated by a Democratic President, and further escalated by the next Republican President. Bush championed NAFTA and Clinton saw it through. Both parties are opposed to single-payer healthcare, with a few outliers as exceptions. Both supported the bailout. Both supported No Child Left Behind. Both support the Patriot Act. Presidents from both parties have promoted outsourcing of jobs. Even on social issues, Clinton signed DOMA, welfare reform, and the crime bill.

 

They are pretty much the same. There was incredible continuity in American government from Reagan to Obama. If you use the term neoliberalism, you basically believe that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same or close to the same on virtually every issue, only disagreeing about things like gay marriage and abortion. It seems like the differences are bigger than they really are, which makes sense when there's tons of overlap in party donors.

 

The Powell memorandum in the early 70s, along with the formation of the Trilateral Commission, are usually cited as the birth of neoliberalism. Milton Friedman is usually cited as the godfather.

 

 

Except that Clinton and Obama both raised taxes on the wealthy. Or that Obama enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in since Johnson. Or that Wall Street turned on the Democrats with a vengeance after Dodd-Frank. Or that pretty much every Democrat in the Senate with presidential aspirations has endorsed Bernie's Medicare-for-all bill. Or that a federal jobs guarantee has become the default position of the Democratic Party virtually overnight. It's one thing to say that these measures don't go far enough. But to act like there are no significant differences between them and the Republicans is nothing more than vulgar Chomskyism.

[shodate]

If JvK has been driven to the right, that's a pretty dire statement on the state of the left in the West. To hear them tell it, anything less than full communism is neoliberalism, which is indistinguishable from conservatism. It's crap like this that's going to get Trump reelected.

 

 

 

 

See, neoliberalism as described in this thread is essentially indistinguishable from conservatism (other than the diversity part, which historically has not been Vince McMahon's strong suit to say the least). The term has become basically meaningless. It's little more than an epithet used by leftists to describe anyone to their right.

 

That's entirely untrue if you actually understand what the term is meant to describe; that is, the change in the operation and organisation of capitalism that began in the 1970s and the logic of which was politically hegemonic for about 35 years.

 

 

Let me ask again. What exactly is the difference between neoliberalism and conservatism? Is it solely the the former is more socially tolerant?

 

 

Short answer: Yes, pretty much, generally speaking.

 

Long answer: Neoconservatives prefer to use weapons on their enemies and neoliberals would rather starve them to death, as someone here who I won't name in case he doesn't want to be dragged into this thread said to me once in a chat where we were discussing the term. The war in Afghanistan was started by a Republican President, escalated by a Democratic President, and further escalated by the next Republican President. Bush championed NAFTA and Clinton saw it through. Both parties are opposed to single-payer healthcare, with a few outliers as exceptions. Both supported the bailout. Both supported No Child Left Behind. Both support the Patriot Act. Presidents from both parties have promoted outsourcing of jobs. Even on social issues, Clinton signed DOMA, welfare reform, and the crime bill.

 

They are pretty much the same. There was incredible continuity in American government from Reagan to Obama. If you use the term neoliberalism, you basically believe that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same or close to the same on virtually every issue, only disagreeing about things like gay marriage and abortion. It seems like the differences are bigger than they really are, which makes sense when there's tons of overlap in party donors.

 

The Powell memorandum in the early 70s, along with the formation of the Trilateral Commission, are usually cited as the birth of neoliberalism. Milton Friedman is usually cited as the godfather.

 

 

Except that Clinton and Obama both raised taxes on the wealthy. Or that Obama enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in since Johnson. Or that Wall Street turned on the Democrats with a vengeance after Dodd-Frank. Or that pretty much every Democrat in the Senate with presidential aspirations has endorsed Bernie's Medicare-for-all bill. Or that a federal jobs guarantee has become the default position of the Democratic Party virtually overnight. It's one thing to say that these measures don't go far enough. But to act like there are no significant differences between them and the Republicans is nothing more than vulgar Chomskyism.

Trump is neo-Liberal though that is not untrue people like me see neoliberals both on the left and right and look at other things nither Obama or Trump cancel the USPA and trump passed the cloud act

 

he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves Nither

 

also do not id Chomsky hes the only true left-wing thinker left in the whole us Harris is Neo con zionist p very un-left wing thing to be Harristes are the real cancer of the left not people like Zizek and Chomsky and people who are on there side of the left