|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-16-2015, 10:43 AM | #121 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
Cesaro would have been a cold contender. Wouldn't have helped anything. Bryan was crazy over at that point, he was fine with Kane. As for Brie, I'm sure he was pro giving his gf more TV time. It's not WWEs fault she's a terrible actress. |
|
10-16-2015, 12:15 PM | #122 |
President of Freedonia
Posts: 58,167
|
The CyNick loves Double Double E
|
10-16-2015, 12:18 PM | #123 |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
|
10-16-2015, 05:05 PM | #124 | |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Quote:
|
|
10-16-2015, 05:09 PM | #125 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
SHEEEEEEEEEP
|
10-16-2015, 05:55 PM | #126 |
Posts: 3,755
|
I remember Hunter stating in a interview that Sandow was indeed talented, but needed something to click. Then the change from Idol Stevens to the Intellectual Savior of the Masses was born, and Hunter mentioned how it was something they could run with that Sandow was clearly good with. He got heat, he got over, and he was good enough to be elevated. Instead, they killed the MITB push, jobbed him out, and only when they squandered any heat he had left did they put him in a comedy role.
Feel like CyNick purposely glosses over periods of time where there was legit opportunity for WWE and co to make a valuable upper mid card talent that was squashed for no reason whatsoever. |
10-16-2015, 05:58 PM | #127 |
Posts: 3,755
|
And not everyone gets loves WWE. Quite a number of us watch or keep eyes on the product via habit, as its been a staple in our lives since we were children. I openly complain about the product and I far from love it. I more or less tolerate it, but even the I find myself tuning out of the hulu episodes they edit because even at half the length, the show is not interesting enough to hold my attention.
|
10-16-2015, 11:04 PM | #128 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
I remember immediately after Sandow won MITB, he went on some ridiculous losing streak. He even lost to R-Truth a couple weeks after winning it on Superstars I think. lol
Seriously would love to hear the thought process behind giving a guy a major title/accomplishment to build off of and then immediately going out of your way to job them out left and right. |
10-16-2015, 11:09 PM | #129 |
Posts: 3,755
|
Wasn't that a running gag for a while? MITB winners suddenly going on losing steaks?
|
10-16-2015, 11:17 PM | #130 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
It's a running gag for most champions over recent years. It just so happens the MITB case doesn't get defended so there's no title matches that they need to have them win here and there just to keep it on them. They could just job them out endlessly.
|
10-17-2015, 01:48 PM | #131 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
The comedy thing where he was doing the stunt guy gimmick kept him on TV, but you can only go so far with him. I remember watching his matches closely after he turned on Miz, and he still had the same issues in the ring. He couldnt put it all together. I think some people on here look at a guy who does one thing well (either something in the ring, or a catchphrase that gets over, etc) and they assume they can put everything together to move up the card. Some guys just cant do it. Sandow is one of those guys. Whereas a guy like say Kevin Owens seems to have all the tools. His issue is he thinks he can eat cheesburgers all day every day and be positioned as a main eventer. He would be better off showing commitment in all aspects of the business. |
|
10-17-2015, 01:51 PM | #132 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
Some of you guys are either masochists, self loathing sports entertainment fans, or complainers for the sake of complaining. |
|
10-17-2015, 01:54 PM | #133 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
MITB is generally won by heels. Its the ultimate chicken shit way to win the title. For most guys who win the briefcase, they are going to eventually win the title. By having guys beat them, it creates future challengers down the line. |
|
10-17-2015, 02:06 PM | #134 |
Let me talk to ya
Posts: 11,749
|
Have you seen him eating cheeseburgers all day or are you just basing that on his weight? The dudes in shape, he shows that in the ring. Some guys are just built different and won't have a ripped body but it doesn't mean he eats cheese burgers all day.
|
10-17-2015, 02:09 PM | #135 |
Posts: 3,755
|
Dusty Rhodes didn't take his craft seriously since he was a fat fuck who c ate cheeseburgers all day. #CyNickLogic
|
10-17-2015, 06:02 PM | #136 |
Posts: 486
|
Think about it from the side of the promoter!
In the wrestling industry its impossible to make everyone happy. If you keep only making a few certain guys credible, people on forums and on facebook will constantly say how "Youre not fair to not push this guy" and they will do this for any and every guy. So company's fall into the trap of trying to make everyone look credible and then no one looks credible. In CHW at least...you got people who you know are there to job...like Robb Banks...CHW also gets a lot of, "Why don't you push guys Z or Y" but CHW knows that pushing everyone will mean NO ONE gets pushed and leads to a worst product! A lot of fan's don't realize what its like behind the scenes of the wrestle industry. |
10-17-2015, 06:19 PM | #137 |
Posts: 3,755
|
Shut the fuck up. Pretending you're a wrestler in your mom's backyard is not equivalent to being in the wresting industry. Go dive off a cliff.
|
10-17-2015, 09:54 PM | #138 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Yeah, Santino and R-Truth beat Damien Sandow so that it could lead to a world title match months later. Makes sense.
|
10-17-2015, 09:57 PM | #139 |
Posts: 3,755
|
Don't you remember the pushes they got after doing so fan? That's how you build credible headliners. Losing is failing in an upward direction.
|
10-19-2015, 02:24 PM | #140 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
I agree not everyone needs to be chiseled, but there are limits to being the chubby guy who can work. |
|
10-19-2015, 02:25 PM | #141 |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
|
10-19-2015, 02:28 PM | #142 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
I just know I never thought Sandow was anything more than a funny guy. I never saw him have a great match. |
|
10-19-2015, 02:28 PM | #143 |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
|
10-19-2015, 02:48 PM | #144 |
Rigged from the start
Posts: 35,417
|
|
10-27-2015, 10:23 PM | #145 |
Posts: 60,919
|
A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments.
and B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January. What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue. This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows. Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort. This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy. |
10-28-2015, 12:03 AM | #146 |
Posts: 3,755
|
There isabsolutely no benefit to losing on a consistent basis. Especially when you're supposed to be a slimy shit bag who only a year ago was weaseling his way to victory after victory only to somehow forget how to win. Why would fans invest in a loser?
|
10-28-2015, 11:00 AM | #147 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray. NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of. I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people. You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem. |
|
10-28-2015, 11:09 AM | #148 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
Rollins weasels his way to the MITB and then the WWE title. At the beginning he lost non title matches, but still hung on to the title. In recent months his character has evolved. In storyline is because HHH tested him, and with each passing test he got stronger. Yeah he survived against Brock, but he didn't beat him. Yeah he beat Cena, but he had help. Then the worm starts to turn. He beat Sting clean, he beat Kane clean. He's won several matches in TV lately all clean. It's all part of a progression in his character. I think it will continue with Reigns and possibly turn the page on a new chapter on the growth of his character. Through the rest of 2015 and into 2016 he will likely become a more dominant player and the fans will take the journey with him and start to get behind him. If he had been dummying the roster since 2014 as a heel there would be no journey to speak of. You guys gotta remember, the Seth Rollins book needs to have many chapters. Ideally its a story that's told over the next 15 years not 15 months. Just remember the word progression. |
|
10-28-2015, 11:16 AM | #149 |
Let me talk to ya
Posts: 11,749
|
Lol, you'd take Spirit Squad vs DX over Japanese wrestling. NJPW does a really good job booking wise and the matches are always entertaining. Give me Bullet club vs Chaos over anything silly WWE does.
|
10-28-2015, 11:26 AM | #150 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Quote:
No you don't have to turn all TV into squash matches. All we're saying is don't have two guys basically rehash the same segments and matches week after week just because they're feuding. And no, adding tag matches or clusterfuck multiman tag team matches are not variants when you also have those matches repeatedly. No one is saying you can't have feuding guys have the occasional match on TV, just don't do it EVERY week. For example, have guys face jobbers/lowercard guys every other week instead of having the same matches/segments every week. |
|
10-28-2015, 11:36 AM | #151 |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
|
10-28-2015, 11:42 AM | #152 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
Right so you're essentially suggesting a lot more squash matches. Nobody is going to believe Zack Ryder can beat Kevin Owens. Eventually that will lead to people knowing you can skip segment after segment. And do you want Owens v Ryder in an 8 minute match? In theory squashes are quick, so you will need more of them. Soon RAW would have 30 matches per show. What a trainwreck that would be. |
|
10-28-2015, 11:53 AM | #153 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Quote:
|
|
10-28-2015, 12:57 PM | #154 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
You're looking at things from the perspective of the 1% of the WWE Universe. I don't believe the average fan sits there and goes "Ryback has only won 75% off his matches, he should be winning 93.5% in order for me to care about him". They just look at his character, his promos, his look, his skills, and determine if he's worth caring about. I agree that in long term programs the matches can get repititive, but it's a tough balancing act. If you wait till just before a PPV to announce matches, people chirp about on the fly booking and no long term planning. When they have long drawn out feuds where guys are battling week after week people say "we've seen these guys fight too many times". Like a lot of things with the IWC you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The kicker is the IWC represents such a small fraction of the audience, and are the most loyal, that you waste time appealing to their whims. When you need to build 7-8 programs every month, it's tough to ensure everyone in those matches are on winning streaks and not fighting one another. Look at tag teams. How many teams can you have at one time? 5 or 6? If New Day is fighting The Dudleys how do you get 8 TV shots without a lot of either singles matches or 6-8 man tags to keep the program going? Do you job every other team to those two teams fighting for the championships? If you do that, who is left to contend next month? |
|
10-28-2015, 01:13 PM | #155 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.
|
10-28-2015, 01:21 PM | #156 |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
|
10-28-2015, 01:53 PM | #157 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Quote:
I also don't think that the IWC is as small a portion of the audience as WWE and folks like yourself would like to admit. I'd be willing to bet that the IWC as a whole (not just indie fanboys or guys who will watch any wrestling, etc.) actually probably makes up about 25% of the WWE audience. Now, I've gone back and watched a lot of Attitude era RAWs and PPVs on the WWE Network and Youtube, etc. in the last few years. No doubt, some of the writing and booking was shitty and/or REPETITIVE much like today. That being said, there was not nearly the amount of repetition in terms of week to week, month to month, matches/segments that there is today. In addition, the stories were progressing and made more sense (i.e., the stakes were always raised and/or there was a reason for the matches taking place). Back then, they were able to book 7-8 feuds a month without things getting repetitive with even less TV time. Now maybe that was a result of non-existent long term planning (i.e., chaos) or better long term planning, I don't know. Whatever the case, it resulted in better quality product, even if you take out the sensationalism of the violence/sex content. If you think that today's guys coming up the ranks like Bray, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, New Day, etc. are any where near as over as guys like Shamrock, Kane, Benoit, Jericho, New Age Outlaws, HHH, Angle, etc. when they were in the same position coming up the ranks, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. I'd argue it shows in the crowd reactions and ratings too. Yeah, yeah. I know, "But, media's consumed differently now! There's so much competition!" "These guys just aren't as good as those guys were!" I'm even willing to concede that in some cases, some guys today probably aren't as good as their counterparts from back then but that's not enough. It's always some other excuse other than a systemic problem within the company (i.e., writing, over scripting, booking, etc.) even when confronted with resulting evidence like ratings. The problem with your theory is that in comparing ratings averages for the past 9 years, RAW ratings have slowly declined while Monday Night Football ratings have either stayed stable or increased year to year. I understand that RAW will never beat MNF in the ratings. Still the question must be asked. Why has the interest in Monday Night Football not decreased with all the "new" media competition? Is it because MNF, like many other non-sports (dramas, comedies, etc.) shows, and unlike RAW, those programs present compelling television that isn't repetitive week to week? |
|
10-28-2015, 03:37 PM | #158 |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
No way its 25%. If it was there would be 1000 people posting on a place like this. Keep in mind, when I say IWC, In taking about the person who follows all the backstage news and reads dirt sheets.
I'll admit I didn't do the research you apparently did, but I feel like during the Attitude Era, I saw some combination of Austin, Rock, Taker, and Foley in matches over a 3 year period. You have to remember that RAW in 1998 was drastically different, and was touching on material that was never done before. The result was strong TV ratings, but significantly hurt the image of the company long term. It's damage they are still to this day trying to reverse, and it's cost them big time revenue. The booking to me was not much different than it is today. I would be curious about how specifically you saw the booking as different. I remember a ton of pointless tag matches with top guys back then. All usually ended with a schmoze and a bunch of Stunners or Austin looking angrily at Vince. You hit the nail on the head, the difference is the talent. The talent today wants success handed to them. The talent back then fought for what they thought was best. And the person in charge then was the same guy today. Why is it that Steve Austin fought his way out of midcard obscurity but a guy like Cesaro is happy being on TV and posting goofy pics backstage? On top of that, you had a plethora of hall of famers back then, I'm not sure we have that luxury today. It's like a pro sports team, you have some years with amazing talent, other years its mediocre. You asked about MNF. Great question. Simple answer is WWE programming is more like a TV drama, you can catch up on it at any time. MNF needs to be consumed live. That's why rights fees for sports properties has gone up so much in the last 5 years or so. Live sports are You Tube and DVR proof. RAW doesn't have that luxury because it's entertainment. That said, there are not too many weekly storyline driven TV shows that have remained consistently at the top of the charts like WWE has. |
10-28-2015, 06:28 PM | #159 | |
Posts: 60,919
|
Quote:
The idea that you have to do squashes to keep guys strong is false. I would do more squashes, don't get me wrong. I think some of the girls could really get something out of it. Bring in Evie to put over the new heel Paige as she builds momentum for Charlotte and the Divas Title. Maybe you've heard of the KISS method? Keep It Simple, Stupid. You say NXT appeals to a niche audience? I think NXT appeals to a niche of the WWE audience, but I think the WWE appeals to a niche of the television audience. Less people are watching wrestling than almost ever before, and a lot of that might have to do with the things that violate that KISS method, and be results from the Russo-led hot-shotting during the Attitude era, and the soap opera residue that people are now conditioned to and see right through. Why the fuck are there cameras in Triple H and Stephanie's office as they are talking about their evil schemes? So, yes, NXT appeals to a niche section of the WWE audience -- because it's wrestling, and not so much the circus. "In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of." YES! That is why the WWE fucking sucks at the moment -- they're not doing that! Progress! I suppose. |
|
10-28-2015, 06:34 PM | #160 |
Posts: 60,919
|
The internet is here to stay, guys. Sorry, but people use it these days. That's why you see tastes a-changing, not only in wrestling, but in a lot of different ways people think and digest media. To think that there could have been a "YES! Movement" behind Paul London in 2004 is absolutely mind-boggling, but things are different now.
This idea that the average wrestling fan doesn't care about the online stuff is a bit silly. Maybe they aren't as heavily invested in the product as hardcore members of the IWC, but that is why you actually need a captivating product to reel them in. |