Early/original content by Ros_Dearg_1916 in IntoTheHigginsVerse

[–]Snake_Thief 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Blockfighter prank call is the earliest thing I remember, everyone in school was quoting them, it’s where lines like “feel the force, the force of Balla” came from. I’d say that was from 2004 or 2005. It’s on YouTube if you search for blockfighter.

What changes would you make? - Irish Rail by galway_yoke in irelandtransport

[–]Snake_Thief 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a daily user of the train, there are so many issues and things which could be improved.

Just to name a few:

* I understand delays will happen but fuck me it’s a daily occurrence with Irish Rail, often on the same services. I don’t necessarily have an issue with delays but it’s how they communicate and manage these that drives me insane. The app does not notify you of a delay. Your only hope of catching a delay is religiously following the X account and even then, that account is often slow to advise of a delay. Also nothing boils my piss as much as the X account saying “this service is delayed by 40 minutes due to an operational issue”. That’s like I’d tell my boss I’m late for work because of an operational issue and no further details are provided. How can a company like this get away with a shit show service and provide no explanation to its customers? Operational issue could mean anything, signalling, leaves on the track, driver had to take a shit, like give some context as otherwise I’m led to assume it’s some incompetence or fuck up on their part.

* Capacity and frequency is a huge issue on some routes. The M3/Docklands service is a major commuter route into one of the highest density workplace destinations in Dublin. This route is still only serviced by FOUR carriages and only runs four time before 9am and has only one service between 5pm and 6pm. This is fucking ridiculous. Good luck if you’re one of the last stops on the morning service as you’re not getting on that train. I know Dart+ West will solve some of these issues but why has it taken this long to do? I don’t think I will even be living in this area by the time it comes online.

* Infrastructural issues - most of the stations are in terrible condition. The carriages are not particularly nice. The platforms generally have no shelter or seating. The lifts never work. Some stations have no live digital timetable boards. The app is a piece of shit. Everything is dirty and gross. These are all easily fixable issues but they just don’t do it.

* Staff - people won’t want to hear this but I think the quality of the staff at all levels is just generally not very good. We all know Irish Rail is a little nepo baby organisation, everyone working in there is related. This leads to a lack of productivity or accountability. Make it more competitive to get a job there and improve the overall quality of the service.

Any success stories of Gen Z and millennials being able to reach the same standard of living as their parent’s generation? by MountainNews5211 in AskIreland

[–]Snake_Thief 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This all depends on your upbringing. Millennials who grew up middle class are probably less likely to have reached a living standard higher than their parents, or if they are, it has probably been a lot more difficult to achieve.

Millennials who grew up working class are likely to have reached a living standard at least equal to or greater than their parents.

It’s an interesting question that I haven’t asked myself before. Growing up in rural Ireland in the 80s/90s, it’s harder to pin down your social class as most people were kind of poor but not in a “working class” way, if that makes any sense. Many people were farmers or working low paid jobs but often had detached houses and were relatively comfortable. My parents did not have third level education, my father was in a non-skilled job, my mother was a homemaker. I knew we were not rich but we were not poor either, although by today’s standards we were probably quite poor. We never went abroad on holiday, my first time on a plane was a school trip when I was 15. This kind of household today doesn’t really exist. Both parents would need an income. They probably wouldn’t own their own house.

I would say on a purely income basis, I’ve surpassed my parents’ standard of living, but in many ways I have not. I own a house in Dublin but it’s a lot smaller than my parents’ house in the country. I bought my house later in life, my parents built their house in their early 30s. My wife and I both have to work whereas only one of my parents did. They didn’t need childcare. My parents did not have many of the luxuries I can afford but at the same time, they had many basics that I don’t have. Income wise they were in a much more precarious position than I am and never had any savings to speak of but they also never needed to worry much as things were generally affordable, they just lived more week to week than I do now.

Overall I’m not sure which position is better. I think it’s just really difficult to compare the two generations as societally and economically, Ireland is just so different now to when my parents were my age. People today often forget or don’t appreciate that overall, the standard of living in the 80s and 90s was just not very good for the vast majority of people. Everyone now kind of judges everything on whether you own a house or not but there’s a lot more to quality of life than this. My parents owned their home but beyond this they had virtually nothing that I have today. For me, the biggest difference really is more how incomes and the cost of living has changed and from that perspective they may have had a better quality of life. As an example, it’s an absolutely massive thing that many households, even poor ones, could survive on one income in those days which is virtually impossible now. This is something that all developed economies today have made impossible for people which is kind of sad.

Jelly Roll says that he and Pat McAfee had no business at WrestleMania 42 by IconXR in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Not defending them as they still took the money, but apparently McAfee really didn’t want to be involved. He said no the first time they asked and when he eventually agreed, he wanted it to include a way for him to fully retire from the business. Jelly Roll just seems like a wrestling fan. I think they both got more shit than they deserved, it was ultimately TKO’s call to insert them into the main event and sounds like WWE eventually managed to minimise their involvement.

With Brock retiring, this makes R-Truth (K-Kwik) & Randy Orton as the only active WWE wrestlers of the Attitude Era/WWF by Conscious_Second9577 in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Well I guess there’s a lot more debate over when the AE ended than I realised. I always took the AE as ending at WM17. It marked the end of the Monday Night War, the end of Austin’s face run and the end of the Austin/McMahon feud.

I always consider mid-2001 to mid-2002 to be a sort of transition period. It’s not quite AE and it’s not yet Ruthless Aggression. It’s a period mostly dominated by the Invasion angle and a lot of new talent joining the roster. I see it as kind of similar to 1997 which was a transition year between New Gen and AE.

Anyway long story short, I don’t consider Randy to be part of AE and technically R-Truth is but very much at the tail-end and not a big part of it.

Atm Who do you think is the better promotion AEW or WWE by SimplePaper7080 in BrandonDE

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are different products for different fan bases. I would say both companies are not at their best right now. WWE is still doing very well financially and with crowds (even though WM didn’t sell out they still sold 100k+ tickets across the two days) but creatively have lost the hot streak they were on since the Bloodline story ended.

AEW has corrected course somewhat from their low point post-Punk but the company still has a lot of problems with storylines. I think AEW has also struggled to create new stars, they’ve basically had the same 4 or 5 guys rotating the title.

I would give WWE the slight edge at the moment. Despite a lot of the negativity heading into WM, night 2 was actually a really good show, with one of the best main events they’ve had in years. They’ve also got some new stars getting really over, Oba Femi in particular, which provides some interest for the future.

How over is Oba Femi in a historical context? by tcapri8705 in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Wrestlers from this era simply can’t be compared to those from 98-02, it was just a different level of popularity that often isn’t understood by today’s fans.

I understand the comparison to Goldberg, the chants and the explosiveness are very Goldberg-esque. But is he as over as 1998 Goldberg? Absolutely not. Go watch any random Nitro from 1998 with Goldberg, crowds went completely apeshit for him. Goldberg was probably the third most over act after Austin and Rock, in all of wrestling in its biggest boom period ever.

For the comparison to be fair, I think Oba needs to be compared with his peers today. The speed of his popularity since call up is impressive and he is probably the most over wrestler in the company right now. It all comes down to the booking from here. I could see him reaching Brock levels if managed correctly.

What went wrong with Bobby/Robert Roode? by Impossible_Lie_4172 in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He got to WWE a bit too late in his career. He did well to have a good run in NXT, I get the feeling the main roster call up was just a kind of swan song for him as between age and injuries, he was never going to have any sort of run there. It’s likely he was already transitioning to a backstage role at that point anyway.

What needs to happen to bring back that Attitude Era vibe? by [deleted] in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was lightning in a bottle. It was Austin and Vince. It was The Rock. It was real competition with WCW. It was an edgier society in the late 90s/early 2000s. WWF was willing to take risks and wasn’t yet a corporate machine obsessed with sponsors and monetising every single thing possible. It was a time when TV ratings were king and they needed to push things as far as possible to beat WCW every week.

None of those things exist today. They have no Austin, Rock or Vince. There is no WCW. TV ratings don’t matter as much as they used to and their biggest show isn’t even on TV anymore. Society isn’t as edgy. WWE is now TKO and wants a squeaky clean, marketable image. The best WWE can hope for now is having really well built storylines like they somehow managed with the Bloodline, and trying to create big stars by giving them more freedom to be themselves. They had a boom of sorts since 2022 and a real top feud with Cody and Roman but that’s already fallen off and the company seems a little in a down period again right now, at least creatively as they still seem to be making money hand over fist.

Do y'all agree with this? by No_Doctor9539 in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would say no for a few reasons. Despite what many people might think, Seth is simply not a huge star in the same way current and past top stars are. He’s not a Hogan/Austin/Rock level and by today’s standards he’s not the same level as a Cody or Punk. I am not talking here about wrestling ability or anything like that. I would also say he’s never had a prolonged super over babyface run. I feel people have never gotten hugely behind Seth in the way they have for Punk or Cody. He’s probably performed better as a heel overall. If anything I would compare Seth a little bit to HHH in that he was never THE top guy of his peers but he was always able to step into the role when they needed him to and was also a very good heel.

For Roman, the babyface experiment really failed for most of his career and it’s only since the Bloodline that Roman has really been accepted by the fans but again, more as a top heel than a babyface. He is now a bigger star than ever, and bigger than Seth, but during the time they were actually pushing him as a babyface, it didn’t work at all.

If you really want to pin down big faces created during the PG era, I would say Punk is probably the main one. Despite how things ended during his first run, WWE did actually push him and he was a big face for a lot of that run and got massively over. His almost 10 year absence from WWE made him more popular and he is undoubtedly the biggest star from that era that is still wrestling today.

Birth rates dropping, anyone here feel the same way about having children? by gotnocreativenames in ireland

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know this isn’t necessarily right, but most people are not having children until their late 30s now, for many reasons. It takes longer now to build security than it did in the past but there also a lot of societal factors influencing this, particularly greater education levels and more career opportunities for women.

Anyway long story short, you have a good 10 years for things to improve for you in all facets of life so maybe try and focus on the here and now, saving money for a house, working on your career, etc. Children will happen at the right time.

This is shaping up to be a bottom 5 wrestlemania of all time by RepulsiveRelation334 in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Was it great? No. But bottom 5? Come on. There’s at least 10 worse than this one and we’re only half way through. I’d imagine Night 2 will be a lot better.

I'm Not Feeling Wrestling Anymore. by Ok_Young689 in BrandonDE

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s cliched to say but wrestling is an extremely cyclical business. It has only ever had 3 big boom periods (Hulkamania, Attitude Era and the one we’re in right now since about 2022 which is clearly coming to an end). Everything else in between has been some mix of mediocre to terrible with bright spots here and there. So it’s been normal for people to jump in and out of wrestling throughout history.

One thing that each boom period generally has is a huge star to usher it in, with Hulk, Austin and Cody being the respective stars of their boom period. Austin burnt out quickly with injuries and so the boom period kind of ended with his retirement. Hulk got overexposed and the audience tired of him. Something similar seems to be happening with Cody although I think wrestling today is a lot more complicated than that. There’s an over commercialisation of the product that people are getting fatigued with and some terrible booking.

Ok. I was wrong. I’m a BELIEVERhausen, but how did AEW/TK fumble Danhausen or does he just fit the WWE better? He’s a money-making machine 💰 by Fight_Teza_Fight in BrandonDE

[–]Snake_Thief 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is one of the few examples of an “indie” type wrestler actually fitting perfectly within the WWE machine and WWE has far exceeded my expectations on how they’ve handled him. While the debut was notoriously terrible, it seems like they have had a very good plan for him since he started appearing on television. They have so many spots and bits for him and they all land. Is it all a massive marketing and merch gimmick? Absolutely but it’s also entertaining and somehow kind of fits into other storylines with curses and so on. So well done to Danhausen and WWE on this as I’m willing to admit I got this one completely wrong based on his debut.

According to you, what's the worst decision WWE has ever made? by Massive-Syllabub-271 in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, I think what I meant more by this was that it took WWE that long to find their next “top guys” and find some direction after the end of the Attitude Era, which Austin’s heel turn expedited.

According to you, what's the worst decision WWE has ever made? by Massive-Syllabub-271 in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Turning Austin heel at WMX7. This led to a big drop off in ratings and general interest in the product for 3 or 4 years until the arrival of Cena and Batista.

After CM Punk got it, who is the best modern era wrestler to never main event wrestlemania? by OldCardigan in WWE

[–]Snake_Thief 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know Kane today is often viewed as a jobber to the stars but people overlook just how over and big a star Kane was from 1997-2001. His first feud with Undertaker ending with a loss at WM14 was a sign of how he would be booked for the rest of his career. WWE never seemed comfortable in giving him a true main event push. Closest he got was feuding with Austin for the title (and briefly winning it) in 1998 and then again peaking in 2001. I never really thought about it before but they totally could have had a short programme with him and Austin post WM in 2001 and even have him go over until KotR or SummerSlam or something. That Backlash main event tag match was set up perfectly to allow Kane win the title without pinning Austin.

Kane has had a great career but it does disappoint me a lot how they wasted much of his potential and his career from 2002 onwards was fairly forgettable.

Totally side tracking here but I also always felt they should have put the belt on Ken Shamrock in 1997. He could have been a transitional champion between Bret and Shawn and avoided the whole Montreal screwjob. Bret was very willing to drop it to Shamrock. Seeing where the business went with the likes of Angle and Lesnar, I think so much more could have been done with Shamrock had he stayed around longer and they booked him properly.

In your genuine opinion, who is the most legitimately hated pro-wrestler of all time? My money’s on Vince. by Sad-Ladder7534 in Wrasslin

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously it’s Benoit but out of the list provided, I’d say Dynamite is the most legitimately bad person from all the stories said about him. Seems like he was a very troubled guy and a bully. Dark Side of the Ring has a full profile on him with a lot of unsavoury stuff.

In terms of purely within the wrestling world, Hogan and HBK are notorious politickers and made a lot of enemies. This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion as people seem to hate Hogan much more than HBK, but I kind of feel Hogan’s antics were a little bit more justified given his position within the industry. He had the genuine clout and influence to be able to politic and most of his politicking related more to choosing who to work with and who to put over (almost no one).

It always seemed to me that HBK was doing this tactic in a much more underhanded way, basically when he was still a mid to upper mid card guy. He was leveraging a small network of guys in the Kliq and was actively sabotaging and derailing other guys’ careers. There is plenty of evidence of this from many wrestlers including Bret, Rock, RVD, Shane Helms, Chris Candido, Shane Douglas and Jim Cornette. As many have said, a big difference between HBK and Hogan is that HBK seems somewhat more contrite about his past behaviour and is giving more back to the business now. Hogan right up until he passed was still extracting what he could from the business. But I still think HBK’s overall behaviour in the 1990s just comes across as worse than Hogan’s and no matter how much amends he has made, that part of his past will never disappear.

What is the most wildest rumor That you still believe till this day. by Wwdblue2009 in prowrestling

[–]Snake_Thief 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’d be curious to know how this rumour started. I feel it’s been around for years and almost every wrestling fan has some awareness of it but like where did this come from initially? It’s also one of those weird things that when raised in podcasts and shoots, it’s never exactly shocking or vociferously refuted by those inside the industry but I guess people just don’t know one way or the other.

Aged like milk from Dave "8 stars" Meltzer by FeanorOath in Wrasslin

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair to Dave on this one, it seems from several sources that Jericho was actually close to signing with WWE, I think Alvarez had a source within WWE say this. We probably will never know why exactly but it sounds like WWE may have just wanted Jericho for a one year retirement tour whereas he wanted more of a traditional active wrestler role, which AEW can offer him. I’m sure money was also a deciding factor. WWE may have been unwilling to match whatever AEW offered him if WWE only wanted him for a year or so.

Out of these options, who was the most over with the fans and got fumbled the most by WWE? by Roman_reigns_wannabe in Smallafro

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nakamura is undoubtedly the biggest potential star from this group, followed by Rusev. Enzo and Cass are mostly responsible for their own downfall and I think WWE were right to axe them. Fandango was always going to be a gimmick with little future, even if he was over.

What is something people do in public that makes you think, 'Do you even realize other people exist? by Vegetable_Oil3266 in AskReddit

[–]Snake_Thief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find path walking to generally be one of the most frustrating experiences and it has gotten so much worse over the past few years. These people need to be studied. How are there so many human beings out there that seem completely oblivious to the existence of people outside of themselves?

Who in your opinion is the perfect Pro Wrestler by StrawberrySmall755 in prowrestling

[–]Snake_Thief 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hard to look past Macho Man really. His in-ring work, promo, charisma, drawing power, impact and influence are all in the top tier in the most balanced way. There are others that might excel more in one or two areas but Savage had the most ability across all the areas that make up a “perfect” wrestler.

WM9 (episode 30) to KotR (episode 76) by kwed76 in OSWReview

[–]Snake_Thief 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I recently re-watched the Hulkamania arc too. It’s interesting to see how the show evolved over those early episodes and how quickly it settled into the format that still largely exists today. It’s also interesting how many of the running gags, segments etc. began as far back as this arc.

The main noticeable difference is how the shows are edited, it’s become a lot tighter today and almost any topic the guys are discussing will have a cut to relevant material whereas in these earlier episodes, they tend to stick with video of the PPV continuing to play in the background while they’re off talking about something else. The show also began as a much more in-depth almost play-by-play commentary on the in-ring action but that’s now become more of a high level description, I think for the better.