Smackdown 1/22/2015 Results
- Thread starter Stopspot
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Oh, I gotta love the storyline-based episode of SmackDown, than the typical 'LOL, let's just write random shit' they tend to put out. The episode was good and I'm pleasantly surprised. Keep up the good work!
Positives:
- Good openning segment. I always love it when they kick off SmackDown with Daniel Bryan!
Now, Ryback, Rowan and Ziggler all looked genuinely happy to be back, not to mention each of those 3 guys delivered some good promos.
- Ziggler vs BNB was pretty damn solid.
- Reigns' promo was so good. This may as well be the best one he's ever done. This guy is really starting to grow on me.
- That cameo by Ambrose was good. Dude shows up for 10-15 seconds and completely owns a segment, loved it!
- Ryback vs Rusev was good, I really liked this match! Might be one of the very few Rusev matches I enjoyed watching.
- Harper's promo was decent.
- Harper vs Rowan was a tad bit short, but still a good match for what it was. They have a great chemistry.
- The ME, D-Bry vs Kane in a No DQ was a good match. Seeing Bryan perform is always a treat for me!
I loved that they gave us a preview of the Rumble, as well as teasing (in that final segment) who may end up being the remaining men standing in the Rumble match. I'm so amped up, can't wait for the Rumble, baybay!
Negatives:
- Rowan not qualifying. I love Harper, but damn, Rowan should've qualified for the Royal Rumble match! There had better be a good reason behind this.
The 'Why God, why is this BS on TV?' segment:
- The divas division match. :haha:
Positives:
- Good openning segment. I always love it when they kick off SmackDown with Daniel Bryan!
Now, Ryback, Rowan and Ziggler all looked genuinely happy to be back, not to mention each of those 3 guys delivered some good promos.
- Ziggler vs BNB was pretty damn solid.
- Reigns' promo was so good. This may as well be the best one he's ever done. This guy is really starting to grow on me.
- That cameo by Ambrose was good. Dude shows up for 10-15 seconds and completely owns a segment, loved it!
- Ryback vs Rusev was good, I really liked this match! Might be one of the very few Rusev matches I enjoyed watching.
- Harper's promo was decent.
- Harper vs Rowan was a tad bit short, but still a good match for what it was. They have a great chemistry.
- The ME, D-Bry vs Kane in a No DQ was a good match. Seeing Bryan perform is always a treat for me!
I loved that they gave us a preview of the Rumble, as well as teasing (in that final segment) who may end up being the remaining men standing in the Rumble match. I'm so amped up, can't wait for the Rumble, baybay!
Negatives:
- Rowan not qualifying. I love Harper, but damn, Rowan should've qualified for the Royal Rumble match! There had better be a good reason behind this.
The 'Why God, why is this BS on TV?' segment:
- The divas division match. :haha:
I couldn't agree more. People poke fun at us wrestling fans a lot, but they really don't realize how much there is to this sport. Probably moreso than any other, it's best to stick to wrestling specific websites for news because wrestling writers are the ones who know the patterns, cliches and little behind the scenes intricacies that the general sports world doesn't know. Some of the completely asinine things I have read lately just belie the fact that the writers know next to nothing about wrestling and do not do their research.
I tend to stick to PWinsider, the observer or any of the sites who collaborate/borrow from the previous two.
And for puro new its keep the spirit alive and puro spirit that's where it is at.
Yeah thats my bad. I tend to just scan Yahoo for news stories at work. When I see WWE ones I'd like to discuss I share it here no matter where it comes from. As far as what you went into on who is actually knowledgeable in the subject - I have no idea.
What is your opinion then on sites like PWmania or Wrestlinginc? Who collect a lot of info from the observer or the insider, but also conducts interviews with wrestlers, or have wrestlers write for them (Justin Credible had a column on PWMania for a while).
I hope my post didn't come across as a criticism on you. I actually forgot the topic and was mostly just responding directly to Stopspot's comment. Over the past few weeks I've read a lot of highly ridiculous things on non wrestling sites and felt like I had to blab about them. Definitely not criticizing you at all
That's not bad. I wouldn't blindly take as fact any story that comes across from any site though. I enjoy Meltzer's reviews of matches on occasion. When it comes to any "news story" unless it's sourced directly from the wrestler or company in question, I take it all with a grain of salt. It's not like these are news organizations. It's a few notches above a rumor mill.
Corporate run American news like Fox or CNN? Okay... well not really but maybe you can make a leap and say that as a joke. BBC, Al Jazeera, major newspapers? That's journalism and actual news and to compare a dirtsheet run by a bunch of neckbeards in their mom's basement to any well run news organization is a joke.
If I've learnt one thing working in the communications and media field, it's to take everything with a pinch of salt.
Fox News and CNN are two of the world's most biased news systems out there. One in the pocket of the conservative right, the other in bed with the liberal left, so obviously there will be warring interests between the two broadcasters. So the truth is most often somewhere in between what is being said by either camp on either issue.
A lot of news these days are bough or in other ways angled. Be it by the publishers themselves or by the people writing it. That's why you fact check. If I read something in a publication I have no issue with it, but I'd always like to double check it against another paper or another outlet to see if it was published in another way.
We're in total agreement there. I don't watch news on TV because of the reasons you listed. I will primarily take stories from AP and check them against other outlets. Anyway this is off track.
What I am trying to get across is that when some site says "Several people backstage apparently didn't like the way Roman cut a promo", that sounds like a load of shit. Who are these several people? Who spilled the beans? It's a game of telephone. Again on occasion there is some real shit that filters through. When the story went around about someone saying something racial to Del Rio and getting the taste slapped out of his mouth... that's too specific not to have a grain of truth to it.
You'll find more often than not, I don't have much time for any of this sort of nonsense. I watch the shows, listen to some of the podcasts, and that's it.
In my opinion, it was miles better than the typical/10 BS they tend to put out.
But it's fair, I guess. To each their own.