[youtube][/youtube]




Definitely worth listening to. I highly recommend all of Foolkiller's reviews.

[youtube][/youtube]

he pretty much lost me with the first statement saying that why should Velvet get a title for being popular. Has he not followed wrestling ever?

cero2k wrote:he pretty much lost me with the first statement saying that why should Velvet get a title for being popular. Has he not followed wrestling ever?

He says that Velvet is much better on the mic and stinks in the ring. Lots of people have been super-over and not been in the title picture (Piper, for example). What he is saying is use Velvet where she is best used, which isn't in a place where she needs to have good matches.

Big Red Machine wrote:

cero2k wrote:he pretty much lost me with the first statement saying that why should Velvet get a title for being popular. Has he not followed wrestling ever?

He says that Velvet is much better on the mic and stinks in the ring. Lots of people have been super-over and not been in the title picture (Piper, for example). What he is saying is use Velvet where she is best used, which isn't in a place where she needs to have good matches.

True, but if you look at some of the greatest champions ever, it was the same thing, Hogan and Cena prime examples. For years and years we were given these guys because of their physical appeal and mic skills, exactly what Velvet has going on. Surely as fans we want the best wrestler to be the champion, but to think you figured out what's wrong with wrestling with that is just plain dumb. Wrestling has always been about playing out your strengths and hiding your weakness, or at least shove them down everyone's throat until everyone gets accustomed to them. He says remove all Velvet has going on and she is nothing, well yeah obviously, remove Cena's charisma and physic and we got nothing. But then he uses one of the worst examples with Morrison, remove everything and we still have an amazing high flyer and possibly the only wrestler that actually knows Parkour.

The other video was a good analysis of the KOs division, i get some hate from what he said, but it all made sense at the end. Here with Velvet I just couldn't eat it.

cero2k wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:

cero2k wrote:he pretty much lost me with the first statement saying that why should Velvet get a title for being popular. Has he not followed wrestling ever?

He says that Velvet is much better on the mic and stinks in the ring. Lots of people have been super-over and not been in the title picture (Piper, for example). What he is saying is use Velvet where she is best used, which isn't in a place where she needs to have good matches.

True, but if you look at some of the greatest champions ever, it was the same thing, Hogan and Cena prime examples. For years and years we were given these guys because of their physical appeal and mic skills, exactly what Velvet has going on. Surely as fans we want the best wrestler to be the champion, but to think you figured out what's wrong with wrestling with that is just plain dumb. Wrestling has always been about playing out your strengths and hiding your weakness, or at least shove them down everyone's throat until everyone gets accustomed to them. He says remove all Velvet has going on and she is nothing, well yeah obviously, remove Cena's charisma and physic and we got nothing. But then he uses one of the worst examples with Morrison, remove everything and we still have an amazing high flyer and possibly the only wrestler that actually knows Parkour.

The other video was a good analysis of the KOs division, i get some hate from what he said, but it all made sense at the end. Here with Velvet I just couldn't eat it.

I agree that the Morrison example was bad.
What he is saying with Velvet is that she could be just as effective as a manager or as an occasional wrestler, and it would both up the match quality and up the promo quality for whoever she is managing. Hide the negatives, accentuate the positives.

Part 3
[youtube][/youtube]