Still hardcore?

First thing I said was disagreeing that “it’s foolish to criticize” and thst was like “it being foolish to tell kids not to eat tide pods”…that wasn’t a “it’s shit no matter what”.

Talk about things going over my head.

Hardly…a painting made out of shit is just that. Nothing subjective about shit…it’s still shit.

Only contradiction is trying to equate long running feuds that need hyper violence to end it to cold matches that are booked in fields and someone’s backyard.

Says the guy taking offense to being linked to the year 1999.

Probably thought the Backyard was an inspiring movie too. :joy:

Your whole ‘argument’ is exactly that. Every point brought up has been ignored or dismissed by you, which means that you’re saying that you don’t care, you won’t be reasoned with and it’s shit. I’d actually accept your point of view if you simply used words to the effect of “It’s just not for me” and I’d reply with “Fair enough!”. But no, because it’s something that you don’t like and refuse to see or understand any other side of the matter, it’s automatically wrong because you don’t like it and you say so. You’ve all ready proven that by ignoring posts explaining and defending the genre, both by me and the great posts by Kenrique. It boggles my mind that people are this stubborn.

How can a painting made out of shit not be art? Define shit; are we talking actual feces or just general crap? Personally, I think a painting made of shit can have great sub-text to it. “Why is this painting of the band Five Finger Death Punch made out of shit? What is the artist trying to say?”. If it has a meaning to exitst, it has a meaning. Just like a good deathmatch has meaning behind it, just like a well worked match.

Also,AGAIN there you go using bad examples of deathmatches in your argument. I have rallied against awful deathmatch promotions and bad matches in this very fucking thread (again something you’ve just skimmed over and not even bothered to take note off). Yes, tournaments held in backyards and fields tend not to be the highest seal of quality, but matches held in the likes BJW and Fight Club:Pro are amazing spectacles. But nah, you carry on ignoring the posts and points that don’t suit your agenda.

This doesn’t make any sense. I use ‘dawg’ and ‘own’ in an ironic sense and you still can’t grasp that. I can’t believe I had to explain that to you.

Also, please go back to the Wai & Pollock review of The Backyard and listen to the feedback I sent in for my opinions on that atrocity.

So yeah, all in all, just bugger off mate.

Of course you would defend literal shit being art. :joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:

Was going to reply to the original topic but there’s just way too much to read.

All I want to say is “self-ownage” is without question the most 90s thing said in this thread.

2 Likes

Of course you would contradict yourself again. And well done on completely proving correct everything I said. Enjoy your Kid Rock CD collection.

I assumed it was a new phrase? Like, I get adding ‘age’ at the end of something gives it a 90’s feel ,but using the word ‘own’ as a means to describe a win is a fairly recenet usage, at least I assumed, I could be wrong. Should have just used the tried and tested ‘own goal’ metaphor instead as the concept of using ironic bad phrasing as a way to mock the opposition seems to fly over people’s heads.

So relying on the old “I know you are but what am I?” with the Kid Rock thing. :joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:

You don’t help yourself.

I’ll let you have the last word since it’s pretty obvious it means so much to you…

everyone else has good points that are based in how they interpret wrestling on a personal level, or how they believe wrestling should work as a general rule.

examples:

1: Lots of deathmatches have poor oversight by regulatory bodies who do a lot to push paper but don’t actually do much for wrestlers, and it could be reasoned that the type of damage these people receive in matches like this could be poorly treated, from infections to concussions and everything in between

2: the ceiling for deathmatch wrestling is fairly low in certain territories because it appeals to a lowest common denominator and therefore the acceeptance of your standard fat dudes hitting each other with concussive strikes is problematic for the health of wrestling as a whole

3: it’s just not my thing

Now see, those are some decent examples of arguments against deathmatch wrestling. They’re well reasoned, they take into account externalities and the arguments change based on those externalities. That’s not an exhaustive list of reasons, but they exist, and although I disagree to some point they’re still things you can squirt out your facehole having thought of them for a second first.

Now, your arguments are essentially “I don’t like deathmatches as a concept because it’s possible to have a bad deathmatch” and “its possible to have a deathmatch for no higher reason” as seen in:

…random guys sticking forks and staples in foreheads and falling into glass simply because…reasons.

Also doesn’t take skill to cut yourself and make goofy faces feigning pain.

Trying to compare cold and booked just because deathmatches to a professional wrestling match is like comparing the latest Oscar bait to fetish porn.

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.

None of these arguments are well reasoned because none of these things are unique necessarily to deathmatches. Replace the names of weapons with the names of random moves, or just change the word “deathmatch” to the word “match” or “wrestling” and the argument still holds. Bad, meaningless matches are bad meaningless matches regardless of the tools used to have them. So those arguments we can reject wholesale. Let’s go back to that last quote there for a proof of concept.

Wrestling for the sake of wrestling… does not follow any match structure employed in wrestling. It’s just people hitting each other with random moves, there is no storyline reasons given why the participants are willing to do such things to each other. It’s just superfluous horse shit.

So that quote to me makes about as much sense as your whole argument. Everyone’s seen really shitty indie matches without psychology. Whether the competitors were green or the promotion was bad or what-have-you. If you can throw away an entire style of wrestling because it’s possible to have a poor deathmatch, that’s ludicrous. I’ll grant that it’s probably easier to sell a shitty deathmatch DVD to people over a shitty normal show, and you can make an argument that the prevalence of the shitty deathmatches drags down everything, but that’s not your argument because that implies that there ARE good deathmatches to drag down, which is not a concession you’re willing to make.

I just watched one match a while ago, I think it was in BJW but I’m not sure. There’s this guy in BJW, Jun Kasai, he’s fucking MENTAL. He’s been involved in razor board deathmatches which even I’ll admit I can’t watch. He’s genuinely terrifying and I have no idea how he hasn’t died yet. But that’s his character. He, of his own volition, as an informed consenting adult, has built this ultraviolent character with tons of mystique because that was how he decided to get over. And his whole thing is that he is the most psychotic serial killer type awful person in wrestling - so everyone who fights him is typically an underdog in these deathmatches. He tests people, pushes them to their limits, and tells a hell of a story of survival, of overcoming odds, of attaining redemption in the face of supreme challenge. He manages to do that by hitting people with weapons (and wrestling moves onto weapons and whatever else).

This is not an uncommon wrestling story, but the visceral nature of his gimmick is aided by the nature of deathmatches. You can attain the same sort of character by being Minoru Suzuki or the Undertaker whatever, but Jun Kasai has chosen to go his own way, which is the entire nature of professional wrestling. His matches exist for a reason, his character was built through elements exclusive to deathmatch wrestling, BJW sells very well in its market and has successfully existed for years on the backs of people like him. He is not alone, BJW is not alone. Good deathmatches (as in, tells a story, has match psychology, simulates fighting relatively accurately within the confines of professional wrestling) exist. You choose to not like them which is reasonable. But the manner in which you do that brings me to my last point.

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 contrarian because you’re reading arguments and essentially responding with such intellectual gems like:

Mentally challenged.
I’d say so.

Art :roll_eyes:

Yeah fake or not…it still isn’t “art”.

Someone can paint a picture with shit and call that art…it’s still shit at the end of the day.

It’s just superfluous horse shit.

Stretch Armstrong reaching.

Of course you would defend literal shit being art. :joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:

None of these are arguments, they’re just intentionally provocative poor attempts at being a troll.

There’s others in this thread that disagree that deathmatches are good, but my point was to detail what made them valid as a form of wrestling. Your entire counter to that was being a belligerent, intellectually dishonest troll. That’s what makes you a contrarian - you don’t care a single ounce about actually talking, you just wanna “win” your “argument” with paper thin reasoning.

Hope you’re happy, you got me to waste far too much time on this shit. I made a mistake getting bored at work and coming back into this thread.

1 Like

I think @Kenrique may be my favourite poster.

This just in, you’re allowed to post gore on these forums.