Big Show Officially Retires. (For now)
 

http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/news/bigshowtimeoff

Well, it's not exactly news anymore... but whatever...

Lol yeah... Still... :-\

Nice words from him at the end though. I've grown to enjoy him over the years, and he's a pretty nice guy from everything I've heard. He deserves time off, really. I'm sure he'll find a good career either behind the scenes with the WWE or in comedy.

Well, ECW could handle time without Heyman, but Big Show? Fuuuuck. They might as well close the brand down, now.

So they've just spent all that time building up Heyman and Show for what reason? ECW just gets worse and worse, they shouldn't have had a PPV until they started getting two hours and a bigger roster, but that's Vince for ya. I swear Vince's reputation has been severely damaged by this, if it wasn't damaged by the failure of the XFL, ECW has done the job, no matter how much he blames Heyman. Vince is fucking full of bullshit, also he doesn't deserve to be as succesful as he has been with WWE, he just got lucky.

Big Show deserves the time off he's been wrestling with pain for awhile so now's the time to go.

I was never a big fan of his, but looking back he had some enjoyable moments out there. His matches with Lesner were by no mean great, but decent big man matches.

Oh yeah fair enough for Big Show wanting time off, i was just pointing out how bad it was for ECW. What reason have i got to watch ECW now when both CM punk and RVD are just going to be buried? Lashley? Hahahahaahahaha...

well looks like it is time to push shannon moore to main event status.

^ Or k-fed...

You have to be pretty extreme to tap Brit's ass and live.

who are you kidding, not in a million years

K-Fed! K-Fed! K-Fed!:shifty:

Show is a franchise, who rarely disappoints me. I hope he comes back, and at 100%

Two hour shows aren't as necessary as you make them out. I really like what they've done in some of the single-hours ECW's had, to be honest. As for a bigger roster? I don't think they needed a bigger roster, as much as they needed a better roster.

It's not the PPV's fault that ECW isn't doing very well right now; it's ECW not doing very well's fault that the PPV was such an embarrassment.

^ To support a 3 hour ppv they need a 2 hour show is what i was getting at.

Not at all. Especially if they only have one once every five months.

Well ok, lets say they need a bigger roster in order to support a 3 hour ppv, then they would need 2 hours. Don't believe me? Just look at how shit/short the ECW ppv was.

Pepsi Man, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you. The 1hr time slot ECW has was the root of most problems with d2d

first of all, you only have one hour to develop fueds and build talent, which means you're not going to get much in. Second of all with only 1 hour, they only have and support 1 title. With 1 title, you only have one meaningful match per ppv by default. With 3 or 4 titles on shows, you have at least that many matches to go to that means something no matter what. To make other matches mean something that takes a lot of work that most likely can't be accomplished in an hour show weekly either. Then you have the lack of a midcard really. I like Striker and Thorn and stuff, but come on. People dont' care that much about these guys and its hard to get them to during a short show.
D2D failed because of ECW having 1 hour, 1 title and very little over talent. Coupled with the fact that they put their only 6 over guys in one match, and booked it shitty.
But mainly because of 1 hour/1 title.

Exactly Jeritron, rep to you for using common sense.

You can get plenty into one hour. It's not the one hour timeslot that hurt ECW for December to Dismember as much as it was the quality of talent on their roster. I don't care if you have one hour, two hour, or three hours, Hardcore Holly and Test aren't going to be taken seriously as main eventers after the way they've been used their entire careers. Daivari? Nothing against him, but he's been put over as a guy whose bark is much worse than his bite. I've personally never been a fan of Kevin Thorn or Mike Knox either.

Nevertheless, one hour a week is plenty of time to build up feuds and characters, if you use it wisely. The WWF did it for years, with Raw. Sure, they had other shows, but for the most part, those were recap shows, much like there still are today in many markets. It's not the hour time limit that makes them only "have and support" one title. Whatever their reasoning for not bringing back the ECW TV Title and the ECW World Tag Team Title, having one hour as opposed to two is not an excuse. Honestly, many weeks, ECW has more matches on it than Raw.

I disagree on the "meaningful matches by default" theory as well. Often times, titles are dragged down, to the point where no one gives a fuck about them. You have to keep them built up, or it just doesn't matter. Honestly, how much more are you going to care about Gregory Helms vs. Funaki just because the WWE Cruiserweight Title is on the line? How about a women's match? Hell, for a while there, the Intercontinental Title was treated like garbage in my view.

It's gonna be hard to get people to care about Striker and Thorn regardless, especially with the lack of depth on ECW's roster. I'm telling you, over the course of five months, that's twenty hours, and your typical two hour Raw or SmackDown! brand has to put a Pay-Per-View out at least every other month. Two months times two hours equals sixteen hours, eighteen, if you want to cut them a break.

One title I will agree probably hurt them, but as has been said plenty of times in pro wrestling, the title doesn't make the wrestler; the wrestler makes the title.

Either way, the shit matches on the card are going to mean more and be more interesting if its a tournament to crown a new TV champ.
A wrestler makes the title great, but a title can make the match work. You think people would want to watch Batista and Booker duke it out month after month, night after night if it wasnt about a title? Shit even Austin and Rock clashing repeatedly wouldnt draw as much if it wasnt about the belt. It serves as a launching pad for the fued and gives a match meaning. It draws basically.
If you have matches on the card with guys like Knoxx, Dreamer, Sandman, Thorn and Striker, people are going to care more if its a tournament to crown a new TV champion or for another spot in that title match.

And as for the one hour thing, its a combination of the lack of talent and the one hour thing. The talent could get over better with more time, you make a good case with the mathematics and such on paper, but the common sense of it is that with 1 hour you can't promote a ppv as well as you can with 2.

You probably chose a bad example with Booker and Batista. :p I don't think very many people care about that feud as it is, and I would have to say that most that do probably would even if it weren't for the title.

OH! OH! I can play this game, too!

I didn't jerk off this morning, which caused it to snow. Don't believe me? Look at the weather.

Seriously, that's not a line of reasoning that actually illustrated cause and effect, it's a line of reasoning that says "It was bad, but let's ignore the lack of hype and booking and thought and instead blame the length of the show and size of the roster."

Pepsiman, I dont neccesarily disagree with you. I do believe however that the title does in some cases make the match/wrestler, or at least enhance the storyline and fued a lot. Thats why they have titles, especially midcard titles.

The title is a prop. Generally, if the match has no meaning, throwing the title won't be changing anything.

Must be some pretty strong cum...

Its a prop, but I think you're missing what I'm saying.
Its a fictional world, with fictional character, who have fictional goals.
Those fictional goals include aspirations of a title. The title is often the meaning of the match. Benoit doesnt just jump brands and come for HHH because he doesnt like him. Its the basis of fueds and the method used to push and elevate talent.
They don't have a Royal Rumble for the hell of it, its meaning is all about the title.
Thats why a title shot, #1 contendership or mid-card titles is the root between fueding between superstars and such.
High profile fueds are booked over 2 things, titles and/or soap operatic drama.
The majority of fans/marks care for these things. Not everyone is like us and looking forward to a Benoit/Angle grudge match or random meeting. The title gives it more selling power and makes it draw more, as they elevate the title and make it mean more as well. Its a little of both.

TNA only has one hour shows per week. They were at 11 PM and they were still able to put on better PPVs than this.

Then again the talent in TNA actually look like they might care unlike the travesty that happened at the ECW PPV. Titles or not it's the talent, it's what is done in the ring that matters. So to say that it's cause they only have one hour a week can't cut it since another promotion has only 1 hour, just now they got a better time slot and they're still able to fill whatever PPV time with matches.

No, I just don't agree with it. A title doesn't automatically augment the match. That's why they have other things going on in almost every title match that doesn't involve Stevie Richards or Val Venis on Monday Night Raw. Matches that lack that drama from other aspirations or inclinations tend to be lackluster and unimportant.

And that's saying something.

When I cum, I cum with tha thunder.

Yes, but more important than they would be without it. I said enhance, not make.

it doesn't take a title to always enhance a match. Just the proper build up. Not every WrestleMania matchup is a title match but there are some on that card bigger than the title matches themselves. Some that are better.

WMXIX - Michaels/Jericho, Rock/Austin
SummerSlam - Matt Hardy vs. Edge
WM 21 - Angle vs. Michaels

It's the talent, the build up, the story that the wrestlers are able to tell that make the match. It's the skill that the stars posses and make the best of. THey all can't do everything they know they can do but they can do enough. If the title is the crutch needed to make a match "great" then the match was doomed from the start.

It doesn't automatically enhance it, either.

Which I already said. I said "augment," not "make."

Never said the title ALWAYS makes EVERY match. I'm just saying that as a prop, it is in many cases used to enhance and be the basis for a fued and storyline and it develops from there.

the best storylines don't involve the title.

because they dont need it to enhance them.

Yes, I know. Believe it or not, I am not asserting that.

And since you keep moving towards wording that was mine, why the Hell are you still even arguing with me, especially when you have to "enhance" an argument with points I never claimed you made?

In fact, a meaningful match will be meaningful with or without the title.

and I think he is finally beginning to see and understand that

I was responding to superslim, I'm not still arguing with you.

Nah, I maintain everything I said from the get go.

Funny, Slim and I seem to be saying roughly the same thing, and you were quoting me up until like one post ago.

Meh. Whatever.

As long as you're not still asserting that a title sometimes makes the match, or the argument of de facto meaning (your first post) in a title match just because it's a title match.

Funny, considering your statements are radically different from your original ones.

I meant that prior to any booking (storyline and title fued alike) you have guarunteed matches for the card, in title defenses. Thats where the prop comes in.
Then it turned into the title not giving meaning. To which I said that it can enhance or be the basis was what I was getting at.

I know a prop with meaning - Sauron's Ring of Power.

Another thing I was getting at with my whole "default match" and "fued enhancing" thing is the layout for a ppv.
What was the last WWE ppv without 3 or 4 title matches on its card?

You said of meaning.

How many of those matches are actually meaningful?

Well what do you mean by meaningful? I dont mean that all of the matches are going to be Austin/Bret 97. I just mean that its allows booking a 3hr ppv that isnt a complete abomination.

Well, you're the one who made the statement of "meaningful," but I'd say matches that, for example, weren't booked like utter filler, like many tag matches and midcard title matches have been.

And yes, I know that some of the recent midcard/tag matches have been worth a fuck. That's far from guaranteed meaning, especially when some of those guaranteed titles go MIA (Have we even seen a PPV CW title defense in like, the entire reign of Helms?)

I hate to be a dick, but...

Just to clarify, when was the last time the CW title was defended?

Because it's definitely the title on SD! More likely than not to be defended, despite the "guarantee" he's been mentioning.

To be honest, the Cruiserweight Title was on the line when Helms wrestled Matt Hardy at the Great American Bash, which was SmackDown!'s last single-brand Pay-Per-View.

Oh, Geez. That was right around when I was missing Smackdown, so I didn't realise it was for the title.

Honestly, I don't even remember them mentioning in the buildup to the match that it was for the title, but apparently, it was.

Helms defended the Cruiserweight Title at both the Great American Bash in July, and No Mercy in October, both times against Matt Hardy.

Nah, at No Mercy, it was a non title match.

The reason the PPV sucked was because the booking et al was piss-poor.

The reason the PPV was so short was because of a lack of over wrestlers to put on the show without the PPV audience asking themselves "so who's this guy again?".

I think those saying ECW needs a two hour show aren't far off the mark. One hour isn't long enough to establish the VOLUME of feuds and characters needed to fill a three hour PPV. Next time, if there is a next time, ECW won't have the Elimination Chamber to fill out the card. Short of booking more needlessly long 30 minute slugfests involving non-ECW wrestlers like the Hardyz/MNM, ECW needs a greater number of wrestlers established in their weekly shows.

Still, a 2 hour show still renders the point moot if the writers are as lazy and uninspired as they have been so far.

And finally, the following wrestlers were not used at ECW December To Disappoint:

Al Snow
CW Anderson
Danny Doring
Jazz
Rene Dupre
Sabu
Sandman
Shannon Moore
Stevie Richards
Great Khali
Trinity

Okay, I believe Snow and Anderson were unable to attend due to various issues. But there are several marketable matches in there (Sandman vs Sabu, Doring vs Richards, Jazz vs Trinity) that could have filled out time and provided some action, even if there is no storyline reason for them to take place. That ECW D2D was allowed to only run for just over 2 hours is as much Vince's lack of foresight as it is a lack of wrestlers on the roster.

There. I managed to contradict within the same post.

And yeah, I realise I'm a little late wading into this argument.

DAMMIT! I wanted to pounce on that like Jacko on a little boy.

Actually, it's more the "My conclusion is supported by a non conclusive event where other factors may have lead to its suckitude." Argument.

I do think ECW could use more time, though I agree more with Pepsi Man on talent. They need real talent, not more talent. We can send them all the Tests and Daivaris we can, and still watch the entire show be a suckfest.

The main problem, though, is shitty booking. I think every wrestling show could do with some more time, but they're not exactly offering us a lot in the time theyé got.

I personally think Benoit should have returned to ECW instead of being on smackdown holding the US title. He'd be much more needed and better used in ECW than on Smackdown.
After Kurt Angle departed, I think is where things started to go downhill. I'm pretty sure the title reign and storyline Big Show was booked in was originally intended for Angle. Theres no basis for this other than my opinion but I think he was going to be Heymans leader for the new breed and hand picked to hold the title, resulting in a long reign. This got fucked up. Then RVD and Sabu had their fiasco and that hurt them.
From there they should have introduced 1 or 2 more names that fit well. Like Benoit and/or Mysterio, perhaps even Jeff Hardy in his return.

It seems to me that it sucked mostly because the entire undercard was just thrown together. Seriously, they could have easily built some feuds for the PPV. They LITERALLY had buildup to ONE match on the card. TNA has an hour a week, and they manage to do at least some buildup for the whole ppv card. ECW was building Sandman vs Striker, and then they just stopped. Same with Balls and Thorn (haha, that would be an awesome name for a tag team).

They just booked meaningless squash matches with new talent beating jobbers, and built up for the chamber match for like 5 months. How hard would it have been for Dreamer to run in on the last ECW before the PPV and attack Daivari after his match? It wouldn't take anything away from that hour.

That said, I didn't watch the PPV, so I can't tell you. But from watching ECW, it seems that nobody cares about the wrestlers because most of them are booked as jobbers and develop no personality or feuds.

come to think of it, do you think Paul Heyman wanted to have no announced card, like the old days....and Vince reluctantly gave him the benefit of the doubt instead of forcing him to build matches. And then went nuts when it failed miserably?

Sounds too conspirist to me. To believe it, we'd have to ignore that Vince so heavily made ECW into a WWE product, including both wrestlers AND style, but then decided to listen to Heyman on this element.