My big problem with the WWE

[Chavo Classic]

Yep, another ranting thread but I'll keep it brief.

Why, in the majority of matches, does the guy doing the job have to look bad? I can't remember the last non-PPV match where both guys came off looking strong. Why is it the WWE mentally that the winner must squash or dominate the match? Surely it would be in their better interests to have both guys look strong?

Wouldn't there be a better logic in making the loser look stronger, and consequently, the guy who beat him looks stronger too? Whenever I get a chance to catch ROH, I'm always impressed in how both guys get their fair share of the domination, the chance to show their arsenal, and in the end how the victor walks away looking like he's been tested by the match.

I understand that in the limited 2 hours of screentime there is, not every match can go the minimum twenty minutes to get both guys over, but aren't these the kind of changes that the WWE (and TNA for that matter) should be experimenting with?

[Loose Cannon]

I think there is a place for a squash and a place for making both guys look strong (cough cough last night). But it depends on the situation. I'm all for a squash if the timing is right.

[BigDaddyCool]

meh.

[Outsider]

I hate squash matches with a passion.

[Londoner]

I hate squash matches with a passion.

Same here.

[Jordan]

I am ok with a squash match if it is a chance to put a big star over. Example, Orton is the champ he shouldn't have to defend his title on Raw, except in special situations. So to put him over on Raw aside from Tag matches against Triple H and Cena, have him in squash matches against guys like Super Crazy, Val Venis, or some random old legends. This is how they used to book the main eventers, you rarley saw a big match on a TV show. The best matches were always for the undercard titles, and thats how you grew susperstars. ECW to me is the best booked show WWE has right now. Because they use the same format they used for Monday Night Raw when it was only one hour long. Plus they somehow work in a lot of action and angles into the show.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The WWE has been doing it more and more recently. Their main events seem so far removed from the mid-card that it seems like a different federation altogether. For example, heading into WrestleMania:

Deuce N' Domino are part of the ECW Battle Royal. How are people meant to take them seriously as entrants when they got squashed by Batista on SmackDown!? How is Val Venis meant to enhance talent when he never wins a match, ever? Oh wait, unless it's against Charlie Haas.

The WWE needs to stop pushing its main events as the only thing worth watching in the company, for one; but they do need to realise that making guys look bad does not neccessarily make the other guy look good.

[Fox]

There's a tier-system in the WWE, and the guys on top will always beat the shit out of the guys on bottom.

It doesn't matter that they squash out Deuce N Domino and Val Venis all of the time, because those guys are, unfortunately, never going to be in a position where their overness is a major factor. And if they are, it will be as the result of a huge gimmick change and a sudden boost in credibility (ala Bradshaw to "JBL").

I don't think it's fair to say that there aren't great give-and-take main event matches in the WWE anymore. Jeff Hardy's matches with Triple H are a good example. HBK's matches with Orton, and even some of the matches for the World Title between Edge and Batista have been good give and take brawls.

[Mr. Nerfect]

There's a tier-system in the WWE, and the guys on top will always beat the shit out of the guys on bottom.

It doesn't matter that they squash out Deuce N Domino and Val Venis all of the time, because those guys are, unfortunately, never going to be in a position where their overness is a major factor. And if they are, it will be as the result of a huge gimmick change and a sudden boost in credibility (ala Bradshaw to "JBL").

I don't think it's fair to say that there aren't great give-and-take main event matches in the WWE anymore. Jeff Hardy's matches with Triple H are a good example. HBK's matches with Orton, and even some of the matches for the World Title between Edge and Batista have been good give and take brawls.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree on some level. There is a tier system, yes, but that tier system should not be as unquestionable as it currently is. Also, what happened to tiers sort of sustaining themselves, with their own championships to feud over, and matches within themselves?

Current WWE fans have been conditioned to not care about the mid-card. Part of what made the Attitude era great, was that the opening match of a PPV could hold its own interest. Now no one cares what Lance Cade & Trevor Murdoch are up to. But the WWE still, for some reason, expects us to.

Having John Cena and Randy Orton destroy half the RAW roster does not make them look particularly good, but it does make the roster look fairly bad. The RAW roster really should have won that match, instead of losing via disqualification. It's situations like that where guys can get a safe win over main eventers, and look a bit more like they belong on a big stage.

A lot of the reason no one cares about guys it is in the WWE's best interest for fans to care about, is because they are needlessly jobbed out. That's what rent-a-jobbers are for.