Log in

View Full Version : Wrestlecrap (the book) + Thoughts on WWE in general


Corkscrewed
07-30-2006, 08:44 PM
I'm sure there have been a few threads about this book before, but I dont' want to dig them up.


Anyway, the other day I checked Wrestlecrap: The Very Worst of Wrestling out from my local library, since I remembered hearing about this book before and I enjoy reading.

Long story short, this is definitely a hilarious book that chronocles a bunch of crap over the years. A great nostalgia read for me, especially since it remind me of characters I'd forgotten over the years. Plus, the behind the scenes look was pretty informative.




Anyway, as I read through this book, however, I started realizing that over the past two decades, things really haven't changed that much in terms of pro wrestling. The fact is that most of it is crap.

Now, recently, I've taken to criticizing the writers for failing to come up with intriguing ideas as well as booking things that make no sense, mostly because these writers have no wrestling business experience.

I might be wrong in that. Maybe it's just that they're stupid, period, or maybe it really is Vince's fault. All of it.

Because the main message I get, from the book at least, is that Vince (and Russo and Bischoff and WCW's bookers) have had a long history of throwing random ideas at the wall and seeing which one of them stuck. This was sort of news to me. Maybe because during the late 80s and through most of the 90s, I was merely a mark, but I had always been under the impression that things weren't as bad back then as they are now. And now, as I read this and think about it, maybe they were pretty crappy back then as well.


We often criticize the writers for starting feuds that don't make sense. For making angles that don't make sense, and then dropping them without explanation. We complain about wrestlers being held back, egos getting into the way, horrendous gimmicks being concocted. But you know what? This has been going on ever since the WWF started! (yes, this was news to me)

In retrospect, it's like the WWF was absolutely lucky to get Hogan and Austin to save them and guide them through two golden ages. Without them, we might not even exist as wrestling fans today, because we may not have even heard of pro-wrestling.



It's pretty evident to see why the WWE is struggling today. Vince is convinced that he knows what wrestling fans want, so he books what he wants and assumes fans will like it. When they don't (more often than not), he finds petty excuses and reasons to blame it on anyone other than himself and the people he's friends with. The irony, of course, is that the man who put wrestling on the map has in turn hurt wrestling by ignoring what the fans want, because he thinks that what he wants is what they want, when the opposite tends to be true. Factor into this the backstage politics and you have a recipe for disaster.

But apparently, this has happened numerous times before. Vince Russo and his manic booking in WCW, of course, was the exact same thing. The nWo angle became the same thing after its popularity wore off, with the members being shoved down people's throats and absolutely zero threat being made. The circus gimmics of the late 80s and 90s represent a similar item. Vince felt that over the top was the way to go, so they just tried idea after idea without actually thinking of it.

It would be great if Vince would actually take feedback from the fans and give them what they want, but most of the time, he doesn't. He gives them what he THINKS they want, which is really nothing more than what he wants. The result is we get things shoved down our throats, boring storylines, and a general disenchanged feeling of total apathy.



And then, every once in a while, something golden happens, and everything clicks, and we fall in love with the sport all over again. But if you think about it, that's only happened twice over the past two years:
1. Hulkamania in the '80s
2. The Attitude Era of Austin and DX

That's it.

So we often talk about how wrestling is in a "down cycle" and we'll have great ratings soon, but we've been saying that since 2001. To me, I the cycle is more than just a few years long. It's more like ten years, or even more. Frankly, we may not see another sustained upswing in the WWE for another half decade!

In the meantime, we'll see recycled ideas and storylines and desperate attempts at short term ratings gains, and very little long term thought of building up characters, allowing the people to decide what they want, and constructing fluid, intelligent storylines that connect with the fans.

The way I see it now, Vince's legacy will be one of a manic wizard who concocted tons of potion in his lifetime which helped bring overall benefit to his domain because a few of them produced valiant knights. But for every success, there were a hundred failures. So whenever he dies, he may very well be remembered as the man who did as much to help wrestling as he did to hurt it.



Anyway, that's my little (well, not so little) brainsplurge. I think the main point was that all the crap that we as smarks complain about these days is really nothing new, and stuff like this has been going on for decades. Maybe not news to you, but it was a revelation to me. :)

James Steele
07-30-2006, 08:53 PM
You could argue that its been like this for ages even way back in the early days of the NWA. You could argue that as a whole, wrestling was as big during the territory days when everybody went to see wrestling every saturday night than it is now when there is only a hanful of shows running in the country period.

You should think about asking Trips to put this in the article section.

St. Jimmy
07-30-2006, 08:56 PM
Is there an E-book version available for free download yet?

James Steele
07-30-2006, 09:05 PM
I hope so. My shithole library here doesn't have anything published after 1992.

weather vane
07-30-2006, 09:15 PM
Is there an EBook of The Death of WCW?

DaveWadding
07-30-2006, 09:22 PM
You guys ever hear of interlibrary loans?

weather vane
07-30-2006, 09:27 PM
i dont go to the library cause the nerds will make fun of me

St. Jimmy
07-30-2006, 09:51 PM
You guys ever hear of interlibrary loans?

Please explain for I am lazy and American.

Xero
07-30-2006, 09:54 PM
You guys ever hear of interlibrary loans?
What, when you can rent a book from another library?

Cause that isn't possible, at least here, past what is in the same district (we have like 6 libraries here).

Dorkchop
07-30-2006, 10:47 PM
Wrestling will probably get popular again. You can't predict when. The WWE was so sure Lesnar was going to be as big as Hogan, Austin, and the Rock. They <i>knew</i> he was going to make the WWE the number one thing in the world. That didn't happen. The WWE basically put all of the company in Lesnar and told the world he was "The next big thing" rather than just give him a push and go with what's working. He wasn't. He was good, but not the number one guy in the world. No one was at that time. No one is right now.

Christian was getting mad face pops while being a successful heel. Everyone was telling the WWE he was overdue for his main event push, and spot, but the WWE told us he was just an upper mid-carder. Now Christian wouldn't have been the next Austin, but he could have done so much more for the company. When I think back to this, he was sort of an Austin-Lite when it came to the crowd... Only the WWE just ignored the fans completely.

TNA is pulling the same crap. Everyone wants Jarret to stop hogging the belt, and main event scene. When he finally drops the belt, he gains it back two weeks later. But I find they're catering to their audience a lot right now. Maybe even a little too much. All I know is that overall I'm enjoying TNA a lot more than the WWE.

Do you think the WWF had any idea how popular Hogan was going to be? They had no idea. All they knew is that they had someone with a crap load of charisma and just went with it.

I'm not even going to talk about Austin. We all know how he turned out.

I don't know if TNA will ever be able to get as big as the WWE, but if they can, or even get close, the WWE will have to try harder and give the fans what they want... Not what Vince wants. For a couple of years wrestling could be totally awesome again (With still a lot of crap. But the good will overshadow the crap). I'm hoping that would make both companies better.

The WWE (and TNA) just need to go with the flow, and with what works. It wouldn't hurt both companies to occasionaly read some wrestling message boards. They need to listen to their live audience and actually listen to what we're telling them.

Masters = boring period

Gerard
07-30-2006, 10:56 PM
Have tag team matches changed much in 20 years or so? Just thinking about it the other day, basic formula is:

Team gets upper hand.
One guy gets beaten down for ages.
Guy thats beaten down makes a tag thats unseen by the ref and has to continue geting smacked around for a bit.
Guy thats practically dead sloooowly gets to his corner and tags before sliding out of the ring and using an oxygen mask.
Partner comes in and knocks down both opponents several times with clotheslines or punches.
After a few seconds the fresh guy in the ring gets hit by one move and falls on his ass.
Then the guy that was practically close to death comes in again and starts kicking ass.
Some cheesy moves ensue and the match ends with a clean win by the good guys or ends with them being beaten with underhanded tactics that go unnoticed by the ref (yup apparently that big chair smack that echos around the arena went unnoticed by the ref).


Just seems that the majority of matches follow that formula unless its a team like show\kane which for the most part was a squash match.

Not a bit of wonder tag matches dont take much pride of place anymore, wwe just sticks to the formula thats more obvious than flair getting chucked off the top rope when he's a heel.

Corkscrewed
07-30-2006, 11:01 PM
I dunno. I found tag matches during the Hart Foundation era as well as around 99/00 (when there were literally like half a dozen teams that were a viable threat to the title at any time) to be very exciting. You had teams that worked together, did unique moves together, and did more than just our basic tag match formula of heels work over face who almost dies but tags in and the face team makes a comeback and either wins or loses due to heels cheating at the very end.

BigDaddyCool
07-31-2006, 12:03 AM
Yeah, the book is pretty funny...but don't take it as pure fact. It is good at chronicalling the ever so dumb angles and gimmicks, but where you should watch out in that book is when they start explaining why things were the way there were. You have to remember that it is a second hand telling, sometimes a thrid hand account, and R.D. Reynolds nor Randy Baer were there in the locker rooms or meeting rooms when that crap was made up. But then again, with the very nature of the fake sport, it will be impossible for only but a very select few to know the truth of why certain events happened. Such as the whole Renegade/Warrior/oWn/Hogan squash fiasco.

Gerard
07-31-2006, 05:49 AM
Yeah, the book is pretty funny...but don't take it as pure fact. It is good at chronicalling the ever so dumb angles and gimmicks, but where you should watch out in that book is when they start explaining why things were the way there were. You have to remember that it is a second hand telling, sometimes a thrid hand account, and R.D. Reynolds nor Randy Baer were there in the locker rooms or meeting rooms when that crap was made up. But then again, with the very nature of the fake sport, it will be impossible for only but a very select few to know the truth of why certain events happened. Such as the whole Renegade/Warrior/oWn/Hogan squash fiasco.



Very true, a lot of people take rumours and stuff in this book etc as gospel. Its like a game of chinese whisper, by the time it actualy gets to the person posting the info on the site or in the book etc the info has probably been altered in some way from it going through person to person.

Corkscrewed
07-31-2006, 12:42 PM
Yeah. Most of my post was based on the whole "throwing character ideas" and "storyline inconsistencies" that happened regardless of cause. You can't argue with what was presented on TV, and what I found surprising was that these sort of ideas were pretty widespread back then. Meaning it's not just over the past few years that we've gotten bad writing on a pretty steady scale; it's happened before too.