---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Hey, Scott!
>
> Somebody in the comments section of a post last week linked to this, and it really is an incredible interview with the Big Show. He goes into far more detail than I expected, even for an out-of-character interview.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlrTxtdtOlI
>
> Take care!
>
>
I like Rosenberg. He does GREAT interviews with everyone.
ReplyDeleteThat was an amazing interview. I gained a lot of respect for the Big Show after watching that interview. And what he said about Dolph Ziggler is spot on.
ReplyDeleteYep, there's also a great vid of him approaching Vince for a job with WWE. I guess that's where they came to this arrangement where he interviews a wrestler every other month
ReplyDeleteAnd this is why Ziggler's started using the Superkick as a finish...!
ReplyDeleteHe's had great interviews with Punk and Danielson
ReplyDeleteI love this interview. But one thing I take umbrage with is Show's notion that if he wrestled faster (like he says he could) instead of lumbering, it would take away from his mystique as a giant. But don't they promote him as the world's biggest ATHLETE? Seems to me if he could pick up his pace, he would become a FAR more interesting wrestler to watch.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that he doesn't name Daniel Bryan as a guy who could be the future of the company upsets me. 8 (
What an awesome interview.
ReplyDeleteJust reinforces my opinion that WWE has got to pull back the curtain completely and talk about the workings of 'this business'
Best comparison is with DVD extras and director commentaries. Does knowing the mechanics behind why a sequence was written / shot / edited a certain way decrease my enjoyment of it? Hell no, it adds to it and makes the whole package more fascinating.
Knowing the inner workings of something doesn't even detract from being able to buy into it. If you've put your money down for something you've made a commitment to suspend your disbelief and buy into something wholesale. I'm certainly not going to not pop for Ziggler using the superkick just because I know the Big Show and others have been lobbying for it. If the pop is earnt in the match, they'll still get it.
If the WWE network ever see's the light of day this is exactly the kind of in depth interview they should be doing regularly
Yeah, but he also clearly goes blank on trying to remember Ambrose's name as well. As Show says, he's taken a lot of shots to the head.
ReplyDeleteThe story about him catching Bossman and Bossman's reaction made me legit LOL.
ReplyDeleteAnd Show jumping on the casket was a shoot!
One thing I've noticed is that wrestlers always say "babyface" instead of just "face." Always found that curious.
I will take issue with him about one thing, though: Randy Orton doesn't keep me interested with nuances. I honestly feel Randy's done all he can do in wrestling short of a major overhaul of some kind.
They kinda already do that quite a bit. Most recent example I've seen was the Stone Cold DVD where he talks about wanting to call an audible on his heel turn.
ReplyDeleteAwesome interview. Show is one of my favorite people in wrestling.
ReplyDeleteI don't find Randy interesting because he's given me no further reason to care about his character. I loved his 2010 face turn, it was a breath of fresh air and he was insanely over....and then nothing new for two years.
ReplyDeleteBut Show's analysis of his ringwork is spot on, and explains why so many people here are so off-base about him as an actual worker.
Exactly. It's not like he was giving his comprehensive list, moreso just riffing and throwing out some names. I'm willing to bet he holds DBry in high regard.
ReplyDeleteI'm off base when I say I don't find him interesting? I guess I really don't zone out whenever he's on.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. There's a reason his crowd reactions are so insane despite losing fairly frequently in the last year. He is very, very good at psychology, and the nuances of ringwork.
ReplyDeleteIf only the dude ever figured out how to cut promos.
It's all opinions, man. Count me in on the minority here (and I guess the majority outside the blogosphere) that consider Orton a phenomenal worker.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they do it to this degree, though. Not when it comes to the actual mechanics of ring work and the structure of matches. I'd love to hear guys like HHH, Shawn, Bret (who does go into it in his book) and 'Taker talk about WHY they built certain matches the way they did, and why they made the choices they did in the ring -- both for popular matches (HHH-Foley) and disasters (HHH-Orton at Mania was a very weird match, structurally speaking ... would be interesting to find out what Hunter was going for there).
ReplyDeleteBryan is awesome, and I haven't watched the Punk one, but I was disappointed the interview didn't get as detailed as this one.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy the interview with HBK.
I wasn't really meaning you specifically, sorry. A lot of people here have said much worse things about him purely as a worker, and I (and it seems most wrestlers) think they're wrong.
ReplyDeleteBecause like I said, I agree with you in not finding him interesting. I just think the reason is not finding any reason to emotionally invest in him as a character.
But, yes, I think Show is entirely correct about Randy's in-ring abilities. Looked at in a vacuum, to me he nails all of those little nuances and really, for lack of a better term, gets it. Shawn Michaels, among others, has said the same things that Show said.
The problem is he doesn't wrestle in a vacuum, and I don't see a reason to care about him. It's an unfortunate dichotomy for Orton as a performer: I think he's a much better worker (and more over) as a face but a much more interesting character as a heel.
I love Ortons work. I hate his character... but bell to bell there aint alot of people more crisp and fluid in their moves.
ReplyDeleteSmooth as he may be in the ring, the lack of depth to his moveset is irritating (and indicative of someone who's trained exclusively in WWE), and means I find his matches repetitive to the point of narcolepsy.
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of in the "moveset is the least important thing in wrestling" camp these days.
ReplyDeletePlus, the stuff he does, he does REALLY well. And he, to me, adds moves in more than anybody else on the main roster. He just recently added the slingshot suplex, and briefly added the Angle Slam before Kurt flipped out. Plus that top rope superplex he started doing in the last two years.
I definitely respect that opinion (and it's more substantial than the usual "he's so awful!" insights offered here as criticism for his work), I just disagree.
True. I agree with that.
ReplyDeleteLike Show said, he doesn't really do a lot but what he does and the timing on those things is outstanding. It's why he remains crazy over.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yet again, I say this as not his biggest fan at all. Aside from the beginning of his face run in 2010, he's never been a favorite of mine.
Agree with all of this.
ReplyDeleteWhat's this about Kurt flipping out, now? And why would/did Randy give a single shit?
Kurt's Twitter is a strange place. He went nuts back in the spring when he saw Orton use the Angle Slam in a match, claiming it was poor form to take someone's finish who's still an active wrestler, even if they're in different companies.
ReplyDeleteOrton was dismissive in radio interviews, but said he and Kurt later talked it out. After he returned from suspension, he dropped the move entirely.
Not sure why Randy would capitulate to a pretty baseless complaint, but I guess he and Kurt are friends.
You can tell Rosenberg actually LIKES wrestling.
ReplyDeleteIt's interviews like this that I wish the man on the street would pay attention to, especially those who criticize wrestling as entirely vapid and devoid of any value. The way Show comes off reinforces what many of us already know and believe, that wrestling truly is an art form like no other. There are nuances to it, techniques, heuristics, various styles and periods, different emotions that are elicited. Like anything, when it's bad, it's bad. But when it's good, it's really good.
ReplyDeleteIt all goes back to Jeff Jarrett's wonderful quote: "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, and for those who don't believe, no explanation is ever good enough."
No, I agree. It's just that it seems the strictly WWE-trained guys are limited in what they can dig out in longer matches (Ziggler's another example). I'm all for psychology and timing being at the forefront of wrestling matches, but constantly going back to a headlock - for example - is just lazy and undermines the psychological aspect.
ReplyDeleteI agree too. Orton hasn't had the best 2012 but in terms of match quality in 2011 I don't know if anyone had a better year. He had a couple great matches with Punk, 4 or 5 great matches with Christian, two surprisingly good matches with Mark Henry, and a bunch of good-great matches on Smackdown including the awesome street fight which was my second favorite TV match of the year behind Ziggler-Punk.
ReplyDeleteI agree what someone else said. In terms of workrate he's way better as a face, but as a character he's so much better as a heel. If he could combine his ring work(modified slightly of course) from 2011 and his character from 2009 he'd have the best of both worlds.
I like Rosenberg's interviews because he knows what he's talking about. He wants the wrestlers there and he lets them go. Great interview with Big Show, Daniel Bryan, Shawn Michaels, Mick Foley, Punk.
ReplyDeleteI also liked Show going into detail about how to put a match together. Hearing it from a pro who's done this for a long time.
I've never gotten the hate really, I've always thought he was pretty good bell to bell.
ReplyDeleteto me, the perception many people who are part of the "IWC" have of Randy Orton is similar to the one they have of John Cena. the totally underrate the guy. they might not be the best worker in the world (or maybe they are not even close second) but they are both pretty great at what they do.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like a team of experts (Patterson, Hart, Lawler, etc) in the room asking questions and offering opinions.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, when Triple H's matches are up for review, only Bret has the balls to open his mouth about how bad half of them are.
ReplyDeleteEven Big Show can't wait for the return of MARK HENRY.
ReplyDelete"To those who believe in the beauty of professional wrestling,
ReplyDeletenothing needs to be said. For those who don't appreciate wrestling,
nothing could be said to change their minds." - TV Tropes attributes that to Vince McMahon.
I think it's just a variation of an explanation of the appeal of magic. In a way, they are similar, it's something the audience knows isn't real, but when it's done well enough, we forget that, if only for a moment.
The rest just have Trips's balls in their mouths.
ReplyDeleteI like Orton in the ring, but if you asked me what storylines he had in 2012, I couldn't tell you one thing. Not to mention his face character might be the most boring character in the company.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that most people here tend to acknowledge that Cena's a good-to-great worker; it's his obnoxious, never-changing character that's beyond tiresome.
ReplyDeleteI've argued a few times in the last couple years that his character has changed tremendously over his run, just in more subtle, organic and believable ways than we usually see. But even for a guy like me who's been an unapologetic Cena fan since day one- and remain a fan of his abilities- the last year (I thought he was tremendous for most of 2011) has brought him to a level of stasis that's beyond tiresome even for me.
What I love about interviews like this is that no matter how 'insider' we all think we are, we will never, ever understand wrestling the way the wrestlers do.
ReplyDelete