(07-13-2024 01:26 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Okay, now as far as wrestling. I don't watch it I think it's all fake but my question is if people love it why should I care? I don't, to each his own. My question is: If the whole affair is predetermined on who wins and they follow a script how is a champion chosen? Do any "bad guys" ever win the title? What I see in wrestling are very agile performers. They're the opposite of those tiny gymnast doing somersaults but yet in their hugeness they are actually performing to that degree.

Traditionally the champion was chosen as the guy who has the most drawing power, i.e. can sell tickets. The "booker" (usual a former wrestler) made the matches, thought up the the storyline and chose who "goes over" (wins) in the end. It was up to the wrestlers to fill in the blanks in the ring and get the crowd invested. The whole point was to set up the next show and sell more tickets.

Bad guys can be the champion, "Nature Boy" Ric Flair was a bad guy (heel) for most of his peak. Wrestling was a bunch of regions/territories in those days so it was his job to go to each territory as a traveling "world" champion, make it look like each territory/promotions big fan favorite star had him beat but Flair cheated and escape with his life. Thus when Flair returned it was an even bigger crowd expecting their guy to win the world title beucase he so clearly had Fair beat the previous time.

Flair really mastered this art, which is why he was world champion for so long. Many consider him the greatest ever. The old joke was Flair could go 15 minutes with a broom and "get the broom over". In other words he could wrestle a broom for 15 minutes and he was so clever and skilled he would have the whole crowd cheering wildly for a broom by the end. lol

Usually the "bad guy" is the one who calls the match (calls out the moves in the ring) and its his job to "get heat" (piss off the crowd) and get them behind the good guy to kick his butt. They will cheat, taunt the crowd and work them into a frenzy where at the key moment the good guy will get his big comeback rally and win. Or be clearly about to win before the bad guy got DQ'ed or something.

It was all about listening to the crowd, "working them" and building the crowds emotions up to a "finish".

In the 70's and 80's they sometimes had fans so convinced it was real the bad guys would be in actual danger from the crowd in some cases, they could get cut, stabbed or have their tires slashed. That was considered a badge of honor if you could get the fans that convinced. When I was a kid I once saw Jerry Lawler lose a hair vs hair cage match in Memphis that caused a riot and the "bad guys" had to be escorted from the ring by police in a full sprint to escape the crowd. The crowd was literally going to kill these guys for shaving Lawlers head.

Its not like that at all anymore. Even the most hardcore fans know its just a TV show and most of these guys are friends. But they still get wrapped up in it like rabid fans of other TV shows. It was in the late 90's when they began to admit publicly its just a staged show like Jerry Springer or something.

(07-13-2024 01:16 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-13-2024 07:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I know it's not important and normally it's not a big deal. But sometimes, it gets irritating when someone makes a reference and you can feel that it's incorrect and you have to fact check to verify the factoid given.

I was watching a clip from the Gutfeld show on YT. During their discussion they talked about how the Dems try to make DJT out to be an Existential Thread to Democracy and the comparisons to Hitler that inevitably follow. Discussion flowed into the trope of "________ is as bad as Hitler" for whenever people feel someone is an evil character. That flowed to who did people say Hitler was as bad as since you can't compare him to himself. One of the panelists made the joke that "Hitler is the next Leopold III"...

Maybe it's because I've been reading up on WW2 history and remembered that Leopold III was the ruler in charge of Belgium when Hitler had his army attack France thru Belgium. It was Leopold II who should have been the reference in the joke. He was the King of the Belgians who ran the Congo Free State where his atrocities took place.

I admit it. Sometimes I'm weird.

Join the club. This is the one thing the Idiots in MSM know nothing about. They are totally clueless when they spout the RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY when history has already proven their ideology a failure repeatedly.

I could cite a mountain of historical statistics on this topic but Clowns don’t care about historical facts.

Speaking of WW2 I was always puzzled why Hitler considered the British to be on equal footing as Germans as a superior race. To understand this, one would have to delve into the past.

The Huns aka Germanic tribes ended the reign of the Roman Empire. They were by all accounts savage and brutal. The fiercest of the Germanic tribes were Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

Once the Empire fell, the Angles aka Anglos and Saxons resettled in England. Within in Centuries the Sun would never set on the British Empire.

Most Historians have made the connection between the Huns and the Anglos and Saxons.

Hitler for all of his madness was aware of the Germanic origins of the 20th century British and their lineage of fighting. Mystery solved.

WRT Anglo-Saxon connection to greater Germany, the English of pre Norman conquest British Isles had the same grammatical structure as German. Also the Danes mixed with the Anglo Saxons which was also a touchstone for Nordic influence that Hitler also respected.

(07-13-2024 01:27 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I hate people who think "Last Christmas" is a Christmas song.

Don’t forget Jingle Bells. NOT a Christmas carol.

Genghis Khan, worst human ever, not really all that debatable IMO. Based on sheer volume and ruthlessness, made Hitler look like an Eagle Scout. To match his impact today you would have to be responsible for 800,000,000 deaths.

We have no real grasp of how horrible the planet was, really all the way up to the Industrial Revolution. Life is so unbelievably easy now compared to only 150 years ago that people don’t have perspective. It’s like “oh no, the cops shot an unarmed man”. That would have been a freakin great way to die in 1200 AD. Better than having a rat placed on your stomach under a pan and letting it eat it’s way out because they thought you were a witch, or being places in a bronze bull and having a fire lit under you.

Mankind has been unbelievably evil since day one, it just manifests differently in our new “enlightened” ways. Hitler, Mao, etc. would have been just run of mill maniacs 1000 years ago.

(07-13-2024 01:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-13-2024 01:16 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-13-2024 07:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I know it's not important and normally it's not a big deal. But sometimes, it gets irritating when someone makes a reference and you can feel that it's incorrect and you have to fact check to verify the factoid given.

I was watching a clip from the Gutfeld show on YT. During their discussion they talked about how the Dems try to make DJT out to be an Existential Thread to Democracy and the comparisons to Hitler that inevitably follow. Discussion flowed into the trope of "________ is as bad as Hitler" for whenever people feel someone is an evil character. That flowed to who did people say Hitler was as bad as since you can't compare him to himself. One of the panelists made the joke that "Hitler is the next Leopold III"...

Maybe it's because I've been reading up on WW2 history and remembered that Leopold III was the ruler in charge of Belgium when Hitler had his army attack France thru Belgium. It was Leopold II who should have been the reference in the joke. He was the King of the Belgians who ran the Congo Free State where his atrocities took place.

I admit it. Sometimes I'm weird.

Join the club. This is the one thing the Idiots in MSM know nothing about. They are totally clueless when they spout the RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY when history has already proven their ideology a failure repeatedly.

I could cite a mountain of historical statistics on this topic but Clowns don’t care about historical facts.

Speaking of WW2 I was always puzzled why Hitler considered the British to be on equal footing as Germans as a superior race. To understand this, one would have to delve into the past.

The Huns aka Germanic tribes ended the reign of the Roman Empire. They were by all accounts savage and brutal. The fiercest of the Germanic tribes were Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

Once the Empire fell, the Angles aka Anglos and Saxons resettled in England. Within in Centuries the Sun would never set on the British Empire.

Most Historians have made the connection between the Huns and the Anglos and Saxons.

Hitler for all of his madness was aware of the Germanic origins of the 20th century British and their lineage of fighting. Mystery solved.

WRT Anglo-Saxon connection to greater Germany, the English of pre Norman conquest British Isles had the same grammatical structure as German. Also the Danes mixed with the Anglo Saxons which was also a touchstone for Nordic influence that Hitler also respected.

Yes, the same Anglo Saxons settled Norway as well. Most all English DNA will show some Norwegian because it’s the same Germanic tribes.