Join The Community
TNM Discord
@tnm7sim
tnm7sim
TNM 3:16 Forums
FORUM HOME > TNM > Discussion
TNM7 vs The real world
| ggazoo | Posted on 03/07/03 at 04:54:05 Hey guys, How relevant is TNm in todays wrestling world? And when I say wrestling, I use that term loosely. Well I say it's very relevant. Look what the WWE is doing now. An hour into Raw and you've got about 15-20 minutes of matches, if you're lucky. Between commercials, backstage fluff and the like, the wrestling right now in the WWE (at least on Raw) is minimal. They seem to be saving their good matches for pay per views, and are more concerned with getting deals with Playboy and selling cell phones. But I guess the WWE/F has really always been like that, but it's just gotten worse as time goes on. Which brings me back to TNM. I remember when the WWF, WCW, and ECW were all still around, and TNM was literally everywhere. Everyone was posting their results. And I want to emphasize RESULTS. Most pages you go to now have these long, drawn out cards, with interviews written word for word, backstage stuff and everything. It's a lot to read. Thats why I think in the end however, that if used right, TNM is more relavant than ever. The fans who want the wrestling back in their product can use TNM7 to do so. Ah well. I've babbled on long enough. :) |
| Trance7500 | Posted on 03/07/03 at 21:33:01 I agree. You have far more "trash talk" and commercials for the next PPV or "WWE Music" than you do actual wrestling. Raw and Smackdown have become nothing more than one big commercial, with a little wrestling thrown in for "variety". I miss the days of the old WCCW (World Class Championship Wrestling) They proved you do not need "freak show" gimmicks or a flakey storyline to have good wrestling. WWE is not about wrestling any more.... it's about storylines and bizzare plots and "bra and panty" matches. To this day I still have yet to find any federation that comes even close to resembling WCCW or the old NWA. Ever since Jim Herd sold NWA to Ted Turner, it went down-heel as well, and now it is no more. It's really very sad. I feel sorry for the kids, in particular. They will never know who David Von Erich was....they will never see "Gentleman" Chris Adams and Skandor Akbar. All they have is "Triple H", Hogan, and "The Rock" They don't even compare to the wrestling that **I** knew of, 20 years ago. |
| 91 | Posted on 03/08/03 at 00:28:23 Leave Rock alone, he still has talent. So does Triple H technically, but you wouldn't know it half the time since he's so lazy. |
| Trance7500 | Posted on 03/08/03 at 00:45:25 The Rock may have a good deal of charisma and may be good with a microphone, but that does not make him a great wrestler. Now Bret Hart was a good wrestler. But neither of them would have lasted 5 seconds against any of the Von Erichs, Barry or Kendall Windham, or The FreeBirds. Those guys **were** the wrestlers. They had decent mic skills as well, but they could also wrestle in the ring People seem to think that just because you look good on camera and have a good gimmick, that automatically makes you a "great wrestler" It doesn't. |
| 91 | Posted on 03/08/03 at 01:34:43On 03/08/03 at 00:45:25, Trance7500 wrote:The Rock may have a good deal of charisma and may be good with a microphone, but that does not make him a great wrestler.First off, The Rock has terrific timing in the ring, some of the best around right now, which allows him to deliver good matches against even mediocre opponents. He might not be a good purists wrestler, but the fact that his matches are almost always entertaining (bar that recent effort with Hogan, but that's because Hogan blows) show how good he is. Frankly, I'm not even prepared to argue that with you. And second off, you're putting the Freebirds on a higher plane than Bret Hart. That would include Michael Hayes. You're putting MICHAEL FREAKING HAYES on a higher plane than Bret Hart. I'm not even going to dignify that with an explanation as to why you're wrong on so many levels on that account. |
| Dameyon_Moore | Posted on 03/08/03 at 03:16:00On 03/08/03 at 00:45:25, Trance7500 wrote:The Rock may have a good deal of charisma and may be good with a microphone, but that does not make him a great wrestler.What does make a good wrestler in professional wrestling? Timing? Knowledge of moves? A decent movelist? Respect for your opponent? The discipline of taking care of your opponent in the ring so he doesn't get hurt? Sounds like the Rock to me. Times change and people's sensibilities change. 20 years ago you didn't have sports like Ultimate Fighting Championship or Pride. You didn't have the real stuff like that. At most, you had professional wrestling, amatuer wrestling and boxing. Amatuer wrestling wasn't on television all that much, and boxing was on basic cable. And if I remember correctly, twenty years ago, the line between real and predetermined wasn't quite willing to be crossed yet; the curtain wasn't ready to be drawn on that aspect. So the audience at that time wasn't in the know that wrestling was predetermined or "fake;" as it were. So you had these cats in there doing their thing and it was passed as real. They had their timing and pacing in a way that if you tried to air it now... well... lets look at the sensibilities of the now. What's available to us now is real. UFC and Pride, not to mention on some sports channels available to people on Satellite feeds air martial arts competitions (like Muay Thai kickboxing which is brutal as hell) and various other things. And the curtain has been drawn, and most people know that wrestling is fixed. If you've seen real mat-wrestling, it isn't anywhere as exciting as Mixed Martial Arts fighting. If you've seen oldschool pro-wrestling, it suffers the same dilemma. People today want fast paced action in their wrestling, and the WWE--as well as other feds--has to keep up. They also have to provide something that can compete with UFC and Pride and the other promotions because its available. What made a good wrestler twenty (even ten years ago) wouldn't make that good of a wrestler today by today's audiences standards. Too old, too slow, too boring. Unless a wrestler in the industry today is able to change with the direction of the times, then they're useless. The Rock can do this. Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Rob Van Dam, Lance Storm, Chris Jericho, they all are wonderful wrestlers. The new generation of guys like Charlie Haas and Shelton Benjamin, John Cena and Brock Lesnar and more to come, they're all good wrestlers, too. Some of which have well established and extensive amatuer wrestling backgrounds. Not to mention the various styles *of* pro-wrestling within pro-wrestling. Barry Windham would NOT make a very good luchadore or Toryumon Puroresu performer. But someone like Ultimo Dragon defined the style and adapted amazingly well into Luchadore. As for the comment that Bret Hart and the Rock wouldn't be able to go five minutes with so and so and who's who. Ehhhh. Professional wrestling's predetermined. If the booker wants it longer than five seconds, it'll go longer than five seconds. However, if it were an actual fight or mat-wrestling match, who's to say who could do what to whom and when? How do we know that Rocky hasn't trained for years in brazillian jiujitsu? This is like speculating over a fight between Bruce Lee and Jet Li: there's no real way to determine who could do what and when. Although my money would be on Bruce. As for not enough wrestling on the programs. Yeah, there for a while it was lacking, but it's picked up again. And you have to remember, this is a total package that is defined as pro-wrestling. The interviews, the craziness, the wild attributes, and the like is something that has been around since the days of carnival side shows. It's just *changed*. And for the crazy plot and storylines comment... there hasn't been a crazy storyline since the Dawn Marie shit ended. Most of it all relates to in-ring work and the matches themselves. And there has been only one bra-and-painty match and one paddle on a pole match on Smackdown! in recent memory. Which is because they have one woman wrestler, and two valets to make up their female roster on Smackdown. The women's division on RAW has been one of the most interesting things to watch since the debut of Victoria, and it's been all about wrestling. No goofball matches of any sort. Just brutal women's wrestling shades of some of the stuff I've seen from Japan. Things in the WWE have picked up greatly since the Royal Rumble beginning with that amazing match between Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle. But you wouldn't know it if you went on how people kept going on about how "bad" things are. |
| TiLoBrown | Posted on 03/09/03 at 02:22:49On 03/08/03 at 03:16:00, Dameyon_Moore wrote:I nominate this for the TNM Award under the Catagory of "Quote Of The Year". I agree 100% with it. Regardless of what some people want to think by making comments about the product without even watching an event in almost a year. |
| ggazoo | Posted on 03/09/03 at 15:47:36 I agree with that comment to, but only to a certain degree. If you re-read my post when I started this thread, you've just strengthened my point. The WWE only holds off their really stellar matches for PPVs, while the Raw and Smackdown shows, although they can have their good matches, are being "booked" more and more like a sitcom. Amen to Stone Cold. Ditch the writers. |
| John Proulx | Posted on 03/09/03 at 21:17:42On 03/09/03 at 15:47:36, ggazoo wrote:The WWE only holds off their really stellar matches for PPVs, while the Raw and Smackdown shows, although they can have their good matches, are being "booked" more and more like a sitcom.I think a lot of people predicted this would happen as a result of WWE having essentially no competition. There's no need to roll out good matches on a regular basis now that no one else is doing so, either. On 03/09/03 at 15:47:36, ggazoo wrote:Amen to Stone Cold. Ditch the writers.Really, you do need *some* writers. Not everyone can go out there and be Austin or Rock or even Angle on the mic. However, I think those that *can* deserve the freedom to do it. That said, it's obvious that they people they have now aren't the answer. The wrestling may be OK, but the story lines are, more often than not, either incoherent or badly botched. Rather than shuffle the deck a bit, they should just toss them all and bring in a new bunch. |
| Oliver Copp | Posted on 03/20/03 at 10:44:27 This question needs a two-part answer. 1) How relevant is TNM in today's wrestling world as a way of realistically simulating the style of today's wrestling ? Answer: Irrelevant. Style has changed, and the way matches are layed out has changed dramatically. Now, why haven't I just adapted TNM to the changes ? The answer is: because it would necessitate a rewrite. So, what you actually have is a sim which gives you 1997-style matches today. However, stylistically it does look like it's "back to the roots" anyway due to the style popularized on Smackdown, so in one or two years, TNM might actually have the same style of laying out matches as actual wrestling. 2) Relevant as far as enjoyment. Answer: I do think that today's wrestling fan can still see TNM as relevant because it gives him the option of scheduling wrestlers who will never cross paths against one another. |