It is no secret that I am no fan of the Young Bucks (or as Jim Cornette affectionately calls them… the Hardly Boys).

I see in the 2021 nominations that they seem to rank inside people’s top tag teams. Somehow above the likes of FTR or The Briscoes. I clearly do not see in them what everyone on here seems to…

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp. They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

I’m inviting you, to change my mind. Why do you like them so damn much?

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 01:19 It is no secret that I am no fan of the Young Bucks (or as Jim Cornette affectionately calls them… the Hardly Boys).

I see in the 2021 nominations that they seem to rank inside people’s top tag teams. Somehow above the likes of FTR or The Briscoes. I clearly do not see in them what everyone on here seems to…

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp. They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

I’m inviting you, to change my mind. Why do you like them so damn much?

Yes, there is a lot of copy-paste in Bucks matches (they come up with a bunch of new stuff do every eight months or so). I don't find their selling quite as bad as you do, but it's the sort of thing that will often make me feel like match should be capped around an 8/10 rather than hating everything about the match (though that has happened occasionally).
As someone who did vote for the Bucks for best tag team, I will say that I based my vote around two things:
1. Were they major players in their division throughout the year?
2. Match quality
For the first, I think it's an obvious yes. For the second, the Bucks kind of get the win by default, as they were given the opportunity to have bigger matches than other teams (and, of course, they held up their end of the bargain). I like FTR and the Briscoes much better than the Bucks and think they are better teams, but the Bucks got my vote because the Bucks got to show their abilities more. Part of that lies with the bookers of the promotions I watch choosing who to give their time to, and part of that is on me for not making an effort to watch, say All Japan or whoever to get a better grasp on the worldwide tag scene, but I only have so much time, and I can only vote based on what I have seen.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 23:01

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 01:19 It is no secret that I am no fan of the Young Bucks (or as Jim Cornette affectionately calls them… the Hardly Boys).

I see in the 2021 nominations that they seem to rank inside people’s top tag teams. Somehow above the likes of FTR or The Briscoes. I clearly do not see in them what everyone on here seems to…

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp. They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

I’m inviting you, to change my mind. Why do you like them so damn much?

Yes, there is a lot of copy-paste in Bucks matches (they come up with a bunch of new stuff do every eight months or so). I don't find their selling quite as bad as you do, but it's the sort of thing that will often make me feel like match should be capped around an 8/10 rather than hating everything about the match (though that has happened occasionally).
As someone who did vote for the Bucks for best tag team, I will say that I based my vote around two things:
1. Were they major players in their division throughout the year?
2. Match quality
For the first, I think it's an obvious yes. For the second, the Bucks kind of get the win by default, as they were given the opportunity to have bigger matches than other teams (and, of course, they held up their end of the bargain). I like FTR and the Briscoes much better than the Bucks and think they are better teams, but the Bucks got my vote because the Bucks got to show their abilities more. Part of that lies with the bookers of the promotions I watch choosing who to give their time to, and part of that is on me for not making an effort to watch, say All Japan or whoever to get a better grasp on the worldwide tag scene, but I only have so much time, and I can only vote based on what I have seen.

So I’ll deal with points 1 & 2… in one answer
Because it’s easy to be major players in the division, and to get the time to showcase when you’re the ones who are playing the part of lead bookers of the division or whatever like the Bucks are, they’re like Jarrett in early TNA who focus it on themselves.

They gave themselves one match against FTR, took the titles and ran, the rivalry we all wanted and it was flat and dead within a match.

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 6th, '22, 00:13

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 23:01

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 01:19 It is no secret that I am no fan of the Young Bucks (or as Jim Cornette affectionately calls them… the Hardly Boys).

I see in the 2021 nominations that they seem to rank inside people’s top tag teams. Somehow above the likes of FTR or The Briscoes. I clearly do not see in them what everyone on here seems to…

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp. They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

I’m inviting you, to change my mind. Why do you like them so damn much?

Yes, there is a lot of copy-paste in Bucks matches (they come up with a bunch of new stuff do every eight months or so). I don't find their selling quite as bad as you do, but it's the sort of thing that will often make me feel like match should be capped around an 8/10 rather than hating everything about the match (though that has happened occasionally).
As someone who did vote for the Bucks for best tag team, I will say that I based my vote around two things:
1. Were they major players in their division throughout the year?
2. Match quality
For the first, I think it's an obvious yes. For the second, the Bucks kind of get the win by default, as they were given the opportunity to have bigger matches than other teams (and, of course, they held up their end of the bargain). I like FTR and the Briscoes much better than the Bucks and think they are better teams, but the Bucks got my vote because the Bucks got to show their abilities more. Part of that lies with the bookers of the promotions I watch choosing who to give their time to, and part of that is on me for not making an effort to watch, say All Japan or whoever to get a better grasp on the worldwide tag scene, but I only have so much time, and I can only vote based on what I have seen.

So I’ll deal with points 1 & 2… in one answer
Because it’s easy to be major players in the division, and to get the time to showcase when you’re the ones who are playing the part of lead bookers of the division or whatever like the Bucks are, they’re like Jarrett in early TNA who focus it on themselves.

They gave themselves one match against FTR, took the titles and ran, the rivalry we all wanted and it was flat and dead within a match.

I don't disagree, but that only really affected FTR. There were plenty of other great teams in other promotions that were utilized anywhere near as well they could have been.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 6th, '22, 00:26

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 6th, '22, 00:13

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 23:01

Yes, there is a lot of copy-paste in Bucks matches (they come up with a bunch of new stuff do every eight months or so). I don't find their selling quite as bad as you do, but it's the sort of thing that will often make me feel like match should be capped around an 8/10 rather than hating everything about the match (though that has happened occasionally).
As someone who did vote for the Bucks for best tag team, I will say that I based my vote around two things:
1. Were they major players in their division throughout the year?
2. Match quality
For the first, I think it's an obvious yes. For the second, the Bucks kind of get the win by default, as they were given the opportunity to have bigger matches than other teams (and, of course, they held up their end of the bargain). I like FTR and the Briscoes much better than the Bucks and think they are better teams, but the Bucks got my vote because the Bucks got to show their abilities more. Part of that lies with the bookers of the promotions I watch choosing who to give their time to, and part of that is on me for not making an effort to watch, say All Japan or whoever to get a better grasp on the worldwide tag scene, but I only have so much time, and I can only vote based on what I have seen.

So I’ll deal with points 1 & 2… in one answer
Because it’s easy to be major players in the division, and to get the time to showcase when you’re the ones who are playing the part of lead bookers of the division or whatever like the Bucks are, they’re like Jarrett in early TNA who focus it on themselves.

They gave themselves one match against FTR, took the titles and ran, the rivalry we all wanted and it was flat and dead within a match.

I don't disagree, but that only really affected FTR. There were plenty of other great teams in other promotions that were utilized anywhere near as well they could have been.

Tag Team wrestling is a dead art, or at least on life support. I recognise that. It’s a shame really, but there are so many more better teams available than YB, in my humble opinion.

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 01:19 It is no secret that I am no fan of the Young Bucks (or as Jim Cornette affectionately calls them… the Hardly Boys).

I see in the 2021 nominations that they seem to rank inside people’s top tag teams. Somehow above the likes of FTR or The Briscoes. I clearly do not see in them what everyone on here seems to…

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp. They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

I’m inviting you, to change my mind. Why do you like them so damn much?

man, you're asking us to ski uphill with this question. That's like me asking you guys to make me like the McMahons.

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp.

That's EXACTLY the point, the gimmick is that they're annoying as hell and they play around all the time, and YOUR favorite wrestlers still can't beat them. You wanna talk about the 'old school wrestling' and 'art of wrestling'? THIS is what old school wrestling was about, this is exactly what Gorgeous George and Muhammad Ali did to sell out venues back to back.

They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

"nobody sells" is a terrible with the Bucks, that's where the bias shows, they're fantastic sellers, especially Matt. His whole run when he had an injured back created some of the best tag matches we've had in the last decade. The idea that the Bucks don't sell and don't have psychology just shows that the person is not paying attention to the matches at all.


To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

repetitive matches are a trope of wrestling, everyone does it, it's unfair criticism at this point to anyone in the business. Otherwise we wouldn't need all these storylines, we could just depend on wrestling matches themselves and interesting pair-ups. Hiroshi Tanahashi and Ric Flair are arguably the greatest wrestlers to ever live and all their matches are the shame thing.

The art of tag team wrestling totally exists, thanks to people like the Bucks, maybe not the 1980's version that you want, because well, that was 40 years ago. I'd even argued that the Bucks are the sole reason why tag team wrestling is still a thing in the US.

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 7th, '22, 12:48

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 01:19

To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

repetitive matches are a trope of wrestling, everyone does it, it's unfair criticism at this point to anyone in the business. Otherwise we wouldn't need all these storylines, we could just depend on wrestling matches themselves and interesting pair-ups. Hiroshi Tanahashi and Ric Flair are arguably the greatest wrestlers to ever live and all their matches are the shame thing.

I actually think the Bucks are more guilty of this than most, and I think that Flair and Tanahashi are (relatively) overrated for the same reason. They're still tremendous, but they're not, say Bryan Danielson or Liger or Omega.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 7th, '22, 13:06
I actually think the Bucks are more guilty of this than most, and I think that Flair and Tanahashi are (relatively) overrated for the same reason. They're still tremendous, but they're not, say Bryan Danielson or Liger or Omega.

those are three guys with repetitive matches too if you watch enough of them, Omega structures his matches all the same for instance. ALL our favorite wrestlers are likely to be repetitive unless they have a somewhat 'shoot' style like Syuri or maybe Dragon, where the moves are soo 'basic' that they're not exactly memorable enough to remember them like hitting their spots, but even that is repetitive when you see them many times.

For me, the Bucks, it's not repetitiveness that we're seeing, it's having way too many signature moves that they like to get in, so we see recognizable spots often.

I also don't see how the 'repetitiveness' of the people we're talking about is a detriment to the quality of the match, we're not exactly talking 5 moves of doom Cena/HBK/Hogan level, all the people we've brought up have matches that merge well with their opponents

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 7th, '22, 17:21

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 7th, '22, 13:06
I actually think the Bucks are more guilty of this than most, and I think that Flair and Tanahashi are (relatively) overrated for the same reason. They're still tremendous, but they're not, say Bryan Danielson or Liger or Omega.

those are three guys with repetitive matches too if you watch enough of them, Omega structures his matches all the same for instance. ALL our favorite wrestlers are likely to be repetitive unless they have a somewhat 'shoot' style like Syuri or maybe Dragon, where the moves are soo 'basic' that they're not exactly memorable enough to remember them like hitting their spots, but even that is repetitive when you see them many times.

The advantage that a lot of the submission guys have is that that- unlike Tanahashi- they don't always work the same body part, so the matches feel different. And that's ignoring Dragon having the hard-hitting match in his arsenal, the dick heel stuff, etc.

I think there is a big difference between match structure and the sort of repetitiveness that becomes an issue. The structure is an outline, but the moves are going to be different enough a lot of the time. I think that's a lot different than, for example, the stuff I always complain about with New Japan

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 7th, '22, 17:21 For me, the Bucks, it's not repetitiveness that we're seeing, it's having way too many signature moves that they like to get in, so we see recognizable spots often.

The Bucks in particular seem to find a bunch of spots and then just change up the order, and then in about ten months they come up with a new set of spots.
I also think that stories about submissions or an injured body part, or an underdog babyface, chasing a finisher, or big vs. small, due to the nature of being an actual story, are a lot more resistant to repetitiveness than matches that are the Young Bucks' style where it's more about being impressed by the cool stuff they can do and watching lots of kick-outs, because the flips aren't as impressive when you've seen then a million times before.

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 7th, '22, 17:21 I also don't see how the 'repetitiveness' of the people we're talking about is a detriment to the quality of the match, we're not exactly talking 5 moves of doom Cena/HBK/Hogan level, all the people we've brought up have matches that merge well with their opponents

The Five Moves of Doom stuff never really bothered me so long as they came up with different ways to get to it. But when the way you get there is the same relatively strict outline all the time, I think that's a problem.

The sameness/repetitive nature isn't just a Bucks thing, not even a tag thing, but a wrestling issue overall. This has been magnified in the last decade or so because pro wrestling matches are turning more and more into athletic exhibitions with little to no substance rather than simulated fighting contests revolving around issues.

When I was watching New Japan in the early days of World, I got tired really quick of the junior tag matches because they were all the same "they traded moves with no rhyme or reason for fifteen minutes, then the finish came out of nowhere", but the other teams (I think reDRagon, Forever Hooligans/Roppongi Vice and... whoever else) were equally as bad as the Bucks. It's the same with most Revival matches in NXT : yes, they were well wrestled and all, but they were just "four guys trading moves...." and you know the rest.

Thelone wrote: ↑Feb 8th, '22, 13:22 The sameness/repetitive nature isn't just a Bucks thing, not even a tag thing, but a wrestling issue overall. This has been magnified in the last decade or so because pro wrestling matches are turning more and more into athletic exhibitions with little to no substance rather than simulated fighting contests revolving around issues.

I think part of this (especially in that time-frame) you mention is due to the combination of the internet makings things easier to see, and the indy boom. I don't think anything your point is inaccurate, but I wonder how same-y Rey vs. Psicosis or Dean vs. Eddie would have felt if in addition to ECW and AAA TV, we were also seeing every freakin' spot-show Rey and Juvi did, and instead of wrestling each other in ECW once every month or two, we were seeing them wrestle each other on every indy, every weekend they weren't on tour for New Japan.
Even going back to the mid-2000s, if you wanted see, say, Dragon vs. Roddy, you'd have to individually pay for each DVD of ROH, FIP, PWG, and where ever else they may have wrestled- at probably 15-20$ each, and they'd all be out on different schedules. Now $10 a month will get you access to sixteen different indies on one streaming service.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 8th, '22, 14:10I think part of this (especially in that time-frame) you mention is due to the combination of the internet makings things easier to see, and the indy boom. I don't think anything your point is inaccurate, but I wonder how same-y Rey vs. Psicosis or Dean vs. Eddie would have felt if in addition to ECW and AAA TV, we were also seeing every freakin' spot-show Rey and Juvi did, and instead of wrestling each other in ECW once every month or two, we were seeing them wrestle each other on every indy, every weekend they weren't on tour for New Japan.

Overexposure is definitely an issue nowadays, although I don't think your example works here. People seeing those guys on indy shows would be a fraction of those who saw them on ECW/AAA TV, which would also be a fraction of the WCW/WWF audience at the time. Even today, a much more accessible big time indy like GCW has viewership in the low five figures at best, which is only 10-20% of any episode of Impact (100k), which itself is 1/8-10 of an episode of Dynamite, which itself is almost half of a random Smackdown.

My point is that overexposure becomes problematic when you've reached your ceiling and can't evolve/reinvent yourself (Rey and Eddie did, Dean/Psicosis/Juvi didn't in your example). Look at Charlotte : she's pretty much the same character she was even in NXT and people are just done with her at this point. On the other hand, you have the other three HW, Rollins, Reigns and a few more (I'll even throw Brock during this run) who were able to tweak/freshen their character and stay relevant/over despite coming up around the same time as Charlotte.

Going back to the Bucks (that's about them, right?), the indy style they've been using is basically the norm nowadays so they don't really stand out anymore. It's the same with "big guys who can move" : when the vast majority of current big men fit that bill, this isn't special anymore, just normal. That is why Otis doing generic big man stuff stands out on RAW. Anyway, the Bucks also suck at promos and barely in storylines, so people focus on the in-ring more and since they're wrestling a fair amount, it becomes clear pretty quickly that you're mostly going to get the usual "trading moves" match from them (the moves themselves don't really matter), and it most likely won't be the only match of that kind on the card as well.

Even going back to the mid-2000s, if you wanted see, say, Dragon vs. Roddy, you'd have to individually pay for each DVD of ROH, FIP, PWG, and where ever else they may have wrestled- at probably 15-20$ each, and they'd all be out on different schedules. Now $10 a month will get you access to sixteen different indies on one streaming service.

Outside of crazy completists (not naming names here), wouldn't most people stick with the match in the promotion they're following already or ask around "Hey, I've heard good things about match X, which one is a must see?" and buy that one?

Well this has opened a larger channel, which is great! Overexposure is definitely a factor in a lot of stuff, over exposure to same-y move sets, over exposure to spots that once upon a time would have been hospital angles and finishes, but are now just part of the match and then 10 seconds later someone kips up and runs up a ladder. It's de-sensitising, I think The Bucks for me are a clear and obvious perpetrator of these things. Which is why I say nothing matters in their matches, because nothing registers or means anything.

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 7th, '22, 12:48

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 5th, '22, 01:19 It is no secret that I am no fan of the Young Bucks (or as Jim Cornette affectionately calls them… the Hardly Boys).

I see in the 2021 nominations that they seem to rank inside people’s top tag teams. Somehow above the likes of FTR or The Briscoes. I clearly do not see in them what everyone on here seems to…

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp. They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

I’m inviting you, to change my mind. Why do you like them so damn much?

man, you're asking us to ski uphill with this question. That's like me asking you guys to make me like the McMahons.

Their interviews are annoying in a bad way, they look really cartoony and phony when they’re trying to look tough, they’re about as intimidating as a table lamp.

That's EXACTLY the point, the gimmick is that they're annoying as hell and they play around all the time, and YOUR favorite wrestlers still can't beat them. You wanna talk about the 'old school wrestling' and 'art of wrestling'? THIS is what old school wrestling was about, this is exactly what Gorgeous George and Muhammad Ali did to sell out venues back to back.

They work this cartoon style of over-the-top spot monkey stuff where nobody sells anything and it's all just meaningless because there’s no story telling in the matches.

"nobody sells" is a terrible with the Bucks, that's where the bias shows, they're fantastic sellers, especially Matt. His whole run when he had an injured back created some of the best tag matches we've had in the last decade. The idea that the Bucks don't sell and don't have psychology just shows that the person is not paying attention to the matches at all.


To me, every Bucks match looks exactly the same, it’s copy and paste from one match to the next. It’s just a series of finishers and highly dangerous bumps and flips with no reward that you won’t remember the next day because nothing actually registers in these car crash matches because nothing stands out.

repetitive matches are a trope of wrestling, everyone does it, it's unfair criticism at this point to anyone in the business. Otherwise we wouldn't need all these storylines, we could just depend on wrestling matches themselves and interesting pair-ups. Hiroshi Tanahashi and Ric Flair are arguably the greatest wrestlers to ever live and all their matches are the shame thing.

The art of tag team wrestling totally exists, thanks to people like the Bucks, maybe not the 1980's version that you want, because well, that was 40 years ago. I'd even argued that the Bucks are the sole reason why tag team wrestling is still a thing in the US.

I see you say "it's part of their gimmick" but they do this shit if they're babyfaces or heels, but that's not how it should be. It's not "subtle storytelling" it just feels dumb to me.

You talk about them being "excellent sellers", yeah, they sell the hell out of an initial bump, but then 10 seconds later do something stupid.

I'm sorry, but me not thinking they have great psychology, clearly shows I have watched the matches, because it's just not there, not really, there's no real basis for that statement. Do they have Mick Foley, Triple H level psychology no? Do they have Hart Foundation or Rock'N'Roll express level execution of tag team wrestling? Also no, it's just spots. So I get it, they're an okay tag team, but they're not the best of all time, they're not even the best in AEW right now.

Thelone wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '22, 08:41

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 8th, '22, 14:10Even going back to the mid-2000s, if you wanted see, say, Dragon vs. Roddy, you'd have to individually pay for each DVD of ROH, FIP, PWG, and where ever else they may have wrestled- at probably 15-20$ each, and they'd all be out on different schedules. Now $10 a month will get you access to sixteen different indies on one streaming service.

Outside of crazy completists (not naming names here), wouldn't most people stick with the match in the promotion they're following already or ask around "Hey, I've heard good things about match X, which one is a must see?" and buy that one?

Mostly, yeah, although with only a few real "major" indies (ROH, CZW, CHIKARA, PWG, IWA-MS, and MAYBE FIP) it was probably a lot easier to keep up with everything these guys were doing.

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '22, 12:11 Well this has opened a larger channel, which is great! Overexposure is definitely a factor in a lot of stuff, over exposure to same-y move sets, over exposure to spots that once upon a time would have been hospital angles and finishes, but are now just part of the match and then 10 seconds later someone kips up and runs up a ladder. It's de-sensitising, I think The Bucks for me are a clear and obvious perpetrator of these things. Which is why I say nothing matters in their matches, because nothing registers or means anything.

I think a lot of the stuff you list here are separate problems with separate solutions. You're right that they're all issues of desensitization, but the "spots that once upon a time would have been hospital angles" issue is something that needs to be solved at the booking level, with strict enforcement of making certain moves off-limits with specific permission, and then doing some angles to re-educate the fans. I don't begrudge the Bucks for doing that sort of stuff when everyone else is doing it as well.

The other stuff you mention is all stuff they could fix on their own.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '22, 20:22

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '22, 12:11 Well this has opened a larger channel, which is great! Overexposure is definitely a factor in a lot of stuff, over exposure to same-y move sets, over exposure to spots that once upon a time would have been hospital angles and finishes, but are now just part of the match and then 10 seconds later someone kips up and runs up a ladder. It's de-sensitising, I think The Bucks for me are a clear and obvious perpetrator of these things. Which is why I say nothing matters in their matches, because nothing registers or means anything.

I think a lot of the stuff you list here are separate problems with separate solutions. You're right that they're all issues of desensitization, but the "spots that once upon a time would have been hospital angles" issue is something that needs to be solved at the booking level, with strict enforcement of making certain moves off-limits with specific permission, and then doing some angles to re-educate the fans. I don't begrudge the Bucks for doing that sort of stuff when everyone else is doing it as well.

The other stuff you mention is all stuff they could fix on their own.

I'm not saying we need to go back to the 1980's style of booking, everyone is too smart to it now, but what we need is just smarter booking, when you just let everyone do everything. If you have one booker that goes through everything there's less chance of two finishes by canadian destroyer or 3 backstage assault angles in the same show or several table spots where one might be down for a minute and the next guy is down for the count. It devalues the angle.

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '22, 12:15 I see you say "it's part of their gimmick" but they do this shit if they're babyfaces or heels, but that's not how it should be. It's not "subtle storytelling" it just feels dumb to me.

You talk about them being "excellent sellers", yeah, they sell the hell out of an initial bump, but then 10 seconds later do something stupid.

I'm sorry, but me not thinking they have great psychology, clearly shows I have watched the matches, because it's just not there, not really, there's no real basis for that statement. Do they have Mick Foley, Triple H level psychology no? Do they have Hart Foundation or Rock'N'Roll express level execution of tag team wrestling? Also no, it's just spots. So I get it, they're an okay tag team, but they're not the best of all time, they're not even the best in AEW right now.

There was a clear and HUGE escalation of their volume once they went heel, the jumpers, the beards, the chains, the shoes, it all started after they went heel. Beyond that, it's just their personality, why would that change whether you're a heel or a babyface? Who dictates what "Should be and not be"? What type of mentality is that?

If you think it's dumb, that's cool, it's a personal preference, I personally think that Warhorse and Danhausen are dumb, but they're pretty popular; or that Cena dressing up in jorts in his 40's is dumb, but the latter is the biggest name the Fed has produced in the last 20 years. Some people think that the Hard Foundation and FTR are incredibly boring to watch, and that's ok too, but as boring as they may be, no one should discredit that they're both amazing acts.

It's gonna be irrelevant that we discuss whether they have psychology and selling, I know they have because I've seen it, written about it, because I've been following them for more than a 12 years, I know the matches they have for spots and I also know the matches that were full of psychology and storytelling, but at the end of the day, if you just say "no they don't" then the whole conversation becomes useless, I'm not going to discredit anyone's watching skills here. Like I said, we're skiing uphill here.

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 10th, '22, 04:37
I'm not saying we need to go back to the 1980's style of booking, everyone is too smart to it now, but what we need is just smarter booking, when you just let everyone do everything. If you have one booker that goes through everything there's less chance of two finishes by canadian destroyer or 3 backstage assault angles in the same show or several table spots where one might be down for a minute and the next guy is down for the count. It devalues the angle.

AEW only has one booker. An EVP is not a booker. The overuse of backstage brawls or weapon spots are a booker's decision, it's not because the pot has many spoons.

Also, in the 80's, a lot of matches did used to end with the same move, it's the idea of a 'finishing' move that devalues the power of moves and turns moves like the destroyer or the superkick into something that you don't think should be ending matches, or the idea that two people can't be proficient with the same move. Any move should be able to win a match after wearing out your opponent, otherwise you're doing the move wrong, thus spoketh the Church of Billy Robinson.

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 11th, '22, 11:13

XIV wrote: ↑Feb 10th, '22, 04:37
I'm not saying we need to go back to the 1980's style of booking, everyone is too smart to it now, but what we need is just smarter booking, when you just let everyone do everything. If you have one booker that goes through everything there's less chance of two finishes by canadian destroyer or 3 backstage assault angles in the same show or several table spots where one might be down for a minute and the next guy is down for the count. It devalues the angle.

AEW only has one booker. An EVP is not a booker. The overuse of backstage brawls or weapon spots are a booker's decision, it's not because the pot has many spoons.

I'm going to push back on this a little bit, as it's entirely possibly that Tony is giving the wrestlers a lot of latitude to do what they want within a general frame work he gives them (or even just letting them book their own stuff, like Cody seems to have been doing). We don't know if Tony is more of an "every detail" booker or if he's puts names together, tells the wrestlers how long the program is and who will go over, and any other specific instructions, and lets them figure everything else out, or something in between). It's entirely possible he's booking the matches, but doesn't mind what the wrestlers do between the bells so long as his instructions about how the finish should go are followed, which would allow for a lot more weapons spots.