Yeah so that’s the thing. I guess I just don’t care about a 25 minute story when some dude’s back and legs are all cut up from taking bumps on sharp pointy shit. If the perfectly timed spot is still a guy being power bombed through glass, it’s garbage to me. 
1 Like
Definitely not my thing. I didn’t even like the plunder in the Jericho vs Omega match.
I don’t understand the viewpoint of ‘Its garbage’. Cactus vs HHH? ROH vs CZW? Steenerico vs The Briscoes? All fantastic rivalries with fantastic, bloody feud-ending matches. But they’re all ‘garbage’ because they involve foreign objects? Takayama was paralysed from a simple sunset flip yet deathmatches are still ‘garbage’? BJW, a japanese indy with a large cult following and regular forays into deathmatches, are one of the only touring wrestling companies I know who have a compulsory ‘off season’. But yeah mate, total garbage.
The only foreign objects that are good in wrestling are brass knuckles, Steve Ray’s slapjack, and anything else you can fit in your tights, mate.
I’m not your mate, fella.
I’m more shocked that Stevie Ray’s slapjack is getting some love.
1 Like
I just don’t see the art in taking barbed-wire to someone’s face and making them legitimately bleed from it. Also, for me the fun in pro-wrestling is that it’s simulated combat; ie. it looks cool but they’re not actually trying to hurt each other.
Hardcore matches are like the opposite of that, but I get that some people are into them. I don’t judge, but hardcore wrestling just isn’t for me.
Using examples of feud ending gimmick matches isn’t exactly the same as random guys sticking forks and staples in foreheads and falling into glass simply because…reasons.
The whole art of it IS that it’s still simulated combat. Do any deathmatch spot in a real fight and you’ll probably kill someone, or at least fuck them up pretty badly. Ever seen a guy get thrown through a shoot pane of glass? Ain’t pretty. The art of deathmatch wrestling is making that simulation as bloody and violent as possible without actually causing grievous bodily harm. The psychology is different, and there’s a level of legitimacy that the genuinely painful spots add to false finishes. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it forever, I know it’s not for everyone and I would never fault anyone for not wanting to see it, but it DOES exist for a reason and there is a level of skill required to put together a compelling match.
2 Likes
You know what’s really going to fuck up your points here? That first photo, with Dean Ambrose taking what appears to be a skill saw to the face, has the actual blade removed. It’s literally a piece of metal. All he did was get some colour and the mechanics of the shredder moving up and down spraying his blood, made it look like his head was being torn into. He explains this in his pre-WWE shoot interview, where he compared it to “Hollywood bullshit” as it felt really soft on his skin and was concerned that fans wouldn’t buy it. But look, they have, including you. So yeah, well done on that self-own. Great stuff.
Also well done on just ignoring my point on bad deathmatches being bad. Stellar work.
1 Like
Yeah fake or not…it still isn’t “art”.
Also doesn’t take skill to cut yourself and make goofy faces feigning pain.
Stuffy elitists make that same point about every other kind of art, including professional wrestling. You’ve said a meaningless thing here, for the sake of being contrarian and aggravating, which seems to be your thing so have fun dude
Someone can paint a picture with shit and call that art…it’s still shit at the end of the day.
Trying to compare cold and booked just because deathmatches to a professional wrestling match is like comparing the latest Oscar bait to fetish porn.
It also keeps around the stigma that only retards watch wrestling.
Also…how is it contrarian when there are people in this very thread saying the same thing? Are they all also being contrarian…or is this the label used for those who don’t agree with your opinion?
It’s because there are sound, logical arguements being made about the genre and they’ve practially broke every point you’ve made, and you just go back to the same old shit like nothing happened.
Look at horror movies for example; some are good (The Babadook, Cabin In The Woods, Sinister) and most are terrible (Saw 4+, Woman In Black, The Conjuring). But I’m not going to tar the whole genre as bad.
But nah dawg, you just keep ignoring what everyone is saying (even when you self-own to the highest degree) and you keep doing you.
Horror movies still follow narrative structure that all movies employ.
Death match wrestling for the sake of death matches…does not follow any match structure employed in pro wrestling. It’s just people hitting each other with random shit, there is no storyline reasons given why the participants are willing to do such things to each other. It’s just superfluous horse shit.
Horror movies are not a niche genre that only a tiny portion of people watch…most of the bad movies you listed were actually successful.
Also…using dawg and own…no wonder you like this crap…you’re still living in 1999. 
Deathmatches also follow the standard wrestling narrative. There’s a face and heel, there’s fighting from underneath, the comeback. There are also bad deathmatches that don’t do this (anything from trash promotions like IWA-DS, for example) and some horror movies are bad because they have little-to-no story and are just there to string together a series of gross-out moments (like ‘A Serbian Film’). Similar, no? Again, if you only see the bad shit, that’s all you’ll see.
Successful finacially? Maybe. That just shows the marketing team were earning their crust. Also shows that people will see horror movies at Halloween in their droves. If your barometer is based on how much money something makes…boy, I would hate to have a look at your music/film collection. Must be an absolute state.
Also, while the horror genre isn’t a niche genre, most of the movies go straight to DVD/streaming. So yes, those films would be aimed at a niche that only a small amount of people see. Again, it seems like you judge something based on how popular it is. Nice.
I see your sense of sarcasm is well and truly gone as that parted your hair as it sailed over your head. Also, using an emoticon? Really? What is this, MSN?
Stretch Armstrong reaching.
And there’s the crux of my entire opinion…are we done yet?
Subjective taste is subjective. …using financial success to gauge popularity isn’t subjective…it’s just fact. Doesn’t represent my personal tastes not would I think my tastes know more than the market because the market clearly spoke volumes.
All phones, social media and this very site have emoticons…nobody says “dawg” or “owned” anymore…more reaching.
No it isn’t. You’e entire argument is “It’s shit no matter what”. If your opinion really was that, then surely you would believe there is a good side to it and therefore you wouldn’t be involved in this debate.
Huh, weird that seeing a few posts ago you said, “Someone can paint a picture with shit and call that art…it’s still shit at the end of the day.” You can’t just trot out the “Subjective taste is subjective” whilst saying that some art is crap. Bit of a contradiction you’ve made there.
You must be bald by now what with the amount of times that has sailed over your head. I was taking the piss. The density levels are off the charts.
