Log in

View Full Version : Building and Maintaining a Wrestler (What WWE obviously doesn't understand)


dablackguy
12-16-2006, 01:38 PM
One of the many things we've all said about the product is that there doesn't seem to be any clear idea on how to build wrestlers. And it should come as no surprise that no one is properly built up from this era with things the way they are, so I suggest a few changes:

1. Enough with the Undefeated Streaks

I'm all for giving someone that comes in and destroys people a run like this. But it seems like at least once a year in WWE we have someone coming into the company who just goes on this massive undefeated streak who in a year or less winds up being fodder. If you want to maintain the signifigance of these streaks and give the wrestlers time to develop, you need to stop or limit these streaks.

2. Time

Which brings me to number 2. With this wave of stars over the past few years, we've seen a number of times where a guy shows up on the scene and is handed a title. This is fine and good if the guy is going to get a consistent investment in terms of the push they're going to get. But again, we usually see these types become fodder 6 months to a year later. Solution? don't give anyone a title that quickly. Wrestling is similar to any other sport in that you need your athletes to develop, only in this field you need them to develop rounded out move sets and character traits. And getting slammed into a title scene is a very temporary solution and a hinder from these necessary traits.

3. Make us understand characters more

What I mean by that is that you have by nature of the sport a bad guy and a good guy. Why is the good guy good? Well, we're 'supposed' to cheer for him. So why is a bad guy bad? Because they're the 'cowardly heel'? This doesn't necessarily need to stop, but what should happen, since everyone is a person and not a gimmick anymore, make them more human. Yes I don't like Randy Orton because he's an arrogant asshole and cowardly, but how about some more human characteristics. Make me not like him because he's manipulative and uses people to his advantage. Make me not like him because he openly lies to people or because he doesn't care about anyone but himself. Hammer home these character points. Some of what made the attitude era so successful was SCSA and the fact that people could relate to his struggle with his boss. And that, I think, is the right idea, make character traits and feuds we can all relate to. Sure, having a guy accidentally pee on another guy's leg to start a feud is funny, but not something we can relate to. If you truly want to make this a 'soap opera for men' you have to make people able to relate to it.

4. Blur the line

And in the spirit of number 3, we have this. As real people in the real world, we all know that there is no legitimate such thing as a good guy or a bad guy. Yes, there are good and bad people, but no one is always bad or always good. I'm not referring to a turn here, merely saying that just because someone is a face, why can't they have some heel characteristics? And vice versa? The world doesn't exist solely in black and white, more shades of gray. So why are we still watching vanilla character? We know bad people occasionally do good things and vice versa, so why not display this and give the characters more feel? If we're going to have people on TV playing their human selves, we may as well have more human traits and developed characters as well.

Blitz
12-17-2006, 12:07 AM
A) TL, shut the fuck up

B) As long as ratings are all right, why would WWE care?

Mr. Nerfect
12-17-2006, 03:35 AM
I agree with pretty much everything that was said in the original post, to certain degrees.

I think a proper undefeated streak would be pretty awesome. Remember when they used to count Goldberg's wins in WCW? How many times has The Boogeyman won? Exactly. I don't know why, but I'd like to see the following character brought in to the WWE:

A guy who writes the number of victories on his chest, or something. Don't explain it straight away, but rather have him show up one week with "2" written on his chest. Then the next week with three. Eventually the commentators and fans would catch on. Give this gimmick to Paul Burchill, I could see it working for him. Eventually you can have him come out in gowns, with the number printed on the back, and his character can evolve. On PPVs, he can get special themed attire, with the number printed on it, etc.

I think an undefeated streak like this would be fascinating to watch evolve. And I think that is the key word: evolve. Streaks need to evolve in this day and age, if they are going to mean anything.

Chavo Classic
12-17-2006, 09:39 AM
The only undefeated streak at the moment that I care about is Punk's. Granted he's been up against jobbers and Mike Knox, but it's still an impressive numerical sequence.

However, they've not really pushed this home. I think JR muttered something about it at the Survivor Series. And what is the point of giving someone a streak if it's not being exploited? The problem is that it's lost it's significance.

Say for example Punk loses by pinfall or submission next week, who is going to gasp and post a thread that 'Punk loses'? Craziness.

Londoner
12-17-2006, 12:33 PM
Lol.

Only reason i said that was cause i couldn't really see where a discussion was to be made, we already know all this. But whatever.

Chavo Classic
12-17-2006, 02:25 PM
Well, normally you would post your own thoughts. Maybe offer some criticism on his theories or ideas, or even post some reference that you agree.

If you're too dumb to realise how to collaborate then maybe you should stick to the q&a forums where there are explicit questions for you to respond to.

Lara Emily
12-18-2006, 03:01 AM
The only undefeated streak at the moment that I care about is Punk's. Granted he's been up against jobbers and Mike Knox, but it's still an impressive numerical sequence.

However, they've not really pushed this home. I think JR muttered something about it at the Survivor Series. And what is the point of giving someone a streak if it's not being exploited? The problem i s that it's lost it's significance.

Say for example Punk loses by pinfall or submission next week, who is going to gasp and post a thread that 'Punk loses'? Craziness.

Punk already lost so no thread will come up anyway.

Mr. Nerfect
12-18-2006, 09:32 AM
Punk already lost so no thread will come up anyway.

You're right, but I think I read something about Tazz still pushing CM Punk as undefeated this past week on ECW.

I guess the only way you are undefeated in the professional wrestling industry these days is when you are pinned, or submit, in a one-on-one match, which is stupid.

Kane Knight
12-18-2006, 09:48 AM
A) TL, shut the fuck up

B) As long as ratings are all right, why would WWE care?

Well, the ratings lost over half a point over the course of 2 months...Would you say the ratings are "all right," or perhaps there is something "not" all right?

Kane Knight
12-18-2006, 09:52 AM
1. Enough with the Undefeated Streaks

To add to that, Undertaker has like 5 undefeated streaks. There are several people with undefeated streaks at PPVs to varying degrees of success. But honestly, the numbers are wearing people out on them, I think.

2. Time

I don't know if it's time, or just that they don't use anyone in a meaningful fashion anymore.


3. Make us understand characters more

I'd also like to add, fewer random character twists.

XL
12-18-2006, 02:54 PM
I guess the only way you are undefeated in the professional wrestling industry these days is when you are pinned, or submit, in a one-on-one match, which is stupid.
That's the basis of my whole c-fedding "career"!:'(

Chavo Classic
12-18-2006, 03:38 PM
Punk already lost so no thread will come up anyway.

What? This is exactly what I mean!!!

Blitz
12-18-2006, 03:50 PM
Well, the ratings lost over half a point over the course of 2 months...Would you say the ratings are "all right," or perhaps there is something "not" all right?
I just don't think WWE will care until the ratings really fall, IE around the 0.5-1 range. Raw is averaging about a 3.5 right now, and unless they do something really, really stupid with the product, I don't think that'll change.

M-A-G
12-18-2006, 04:39 PM
I'd also add that when a wrestler is DQ'ed or his match ends in a no contest or draw, he's not undefeated anymore. YOU HEAR THAT, WWE???

Kane Knight
12-18-2006, 05:52 PM
I just don't think WWE will care until the ratings really fall, IE around the 0.5-1 range. Raw is averaging about a 3.5 right now, and unless they do something really, really stupid with the product, I don't think that'll change.

No it isn't. It's down around 2.9-3.0

M-A-G
12-18-2006, 05:54 PM
Nitro would be thrilled.

Blitz
12-18-2006, 06:50 PM
No it isn't. It's down around 2.9-3.0
Still way above what would be needed to see a major change, IMO.