Re: Eddie Guerrero 1967-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordoR
I don't want to make myself look like an asshole here and I'm truly sorry that he passed away, but last time I checked WWE was fake. There was a website going over his accomplisments in his career and how he won the WWE title, but he didn't really win anything because it's all a big soap opera. It has been noted that he was one of the ten greatest wrestlers but I mean how can you determine who's the greatest, if the winners of the wrestling matches is determined by owners like vince mcmahon. It almost seems random sometimes that a wrestler is on top and then suddenly he goes in a slump just because he has become a bit unpopular.
Like I said above, I don't want to create the impression that I'm a big asshole who pokes fun at dead wrestlers, but this is just my opinion on the matter.
You've realised that it is fake but you just can't make that leap as to why he would be considered "one of the ten greatest". It's pretty simple. For a lot of people he was one of the best at putting on a fake match.
His winning a fake title is still an acomplishment, he was considered to be good enough to be the company's representative. Vince McMahon (and others, most likely) decided he was deserving of that position by dint of his popularity and ability. The former might seem random to you but I think it has a lot to do with charisma and attitude as well.
Finally, I think Eddie would not want to be remembered in a way that unnessecarily reminds us of the fourth wall. He would have wanted the show to go on.
Re: Eddie Guerrero 1967-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
However, if I was a betting man and if it were possible, I'd put a bit on his kiddies being financially better off than the average American youngster.
Being Mexican gives them a head-start already.:unsure:
Re: Eddie Guerrero 1967-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordoR
I don't want to make myself look like an asshole here and I'm truly sorry that he passed away, but last time I checked WWE was fake. There was a website going over his accomplisments in his career and how he won the WWE title, but he didn't really win anything because it's all a big soap opera. It has been noted that he was one of the ten greatest wrestlers but I mean how can you determine who's the greatest, if the winners of the wrestling matches is determined by owners like vince mcmahon. It almost seems random sometimes that a wrestler is on top and then suddenly he goes in a slump just because he has become a bit unpopular.
Like I said above, I don't want to create the impression that I'm a big asshole who pokes fun at dead wrestlers, but this is just my opinion on the matter.
I had never heard of Eddie Guerrero 'till this thread.
True, I do hate when they call them "wrestlers" 'cause it gives legitimacy to what they do as being a sport.
Re: Eddie Guerrero 1967-2005
Quote:
I had never heard of Eddie Guerrero 'till this thread.
True, I do hate when they call them "wrestlers" 'cause it gives legitimacy to what they do as being a sport.
What do you want them to be called? They're in WRESTLING so they are WRESTLERS.
I hate it when they call Bill Gates an "Entrepreneur" because it gives legitimacy to what he did as starting a business. Let's call him a janitor instead.
You fucking idiot.
Re: Eddie Guerrero 1967-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricey
Quote:
I had never heard of Eddie Guerrero 'till this thread.
True, I do hate when they call them "wrestlers" 'cause it gives legitimacy to what they do as being a sport.
What do you want them to be called? They're in WRESTLING so they are WRESTLERS.
I hate it when they call Bill Gates an "Entrepreneur" because it gives legitimacy to what he did as starting a business. Let's call him a janitor instead.
You fucking idiot.
Whilst I applaud your appraisal of Busyman I fear you are falling for his trap. He'll be along to inform you that they are glorified stuntmen or physical actors.
Personally, I have no problem with the word "wrestler" being used to describe these sports entertainment stars as a word can have more than one meaning. To me "wrestler", in the right context, can mean someone who performs an unique art form of physical story telling.
No-one but children believe it is real so I see no need to worry about legitimacy. This isn't the 80's anymore and wrestling is no longer trying to market itself as a sport.
As a further aside, most of the guys are actually wrestlers in the real sense of the word as they come from amateur wrestling backgrounds. Kurt Angle (Olympic gold medalist no less), Bobby Lashly, Shelton Benjamin, etc.
Re: Eddie Guerrero 1967-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chebus
Personally, I have no problem with the word "wrestler" being used to describe these sports entertainment stars as a word can have more than one meaning. To me "wrestler", in the right context, can mean someone who performs an unique art form of physical story telling.
The verb 'wrestle' literally means to grapple with someone or something, which these folk undoubtedly do.
You see, the 'trap' wasn't properly thought thro' as the term wrestle certainly pre-dates the sport of wrestling so exponents of this fine art (:ermm:) can be called wrestlers with no cause for morons like Busyman to get all teary.
Re: Eddie Guerrero 1967-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricey
Quote:
I had never heard of Eddie Guerrero 'till this thread.
True, I do hate when they call them "wrestlers" 'cause it gives legitimacy to what they do as being a sport.
What do you want them to be called? They're in WRESTLING so they are WRESTLERS.
I hate it when they call Bill Gates an "Entrepreneur" because it gives legitimacy to what he did as starting a business. Let's call him a janitor instead.
You fucking idiot.
Ok bitch, it's fake wrestling then. If you also read instead of sucking WWE ass, I said, '"wrestlers" 'cause it gives legitimacy to what they do as being a sport."
So STFU. It's an action sitcom (it seems you didn't know that:O ). If you like it, great, but seriously, go fuck yourself.
I saw the movie Vision Quest. Matthew Modine is a wrestler.
