Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The CyNick
You assume they will suck. If a match sucks in 8 minutes, it will be even worse in 15. But you CAN have a good match in 8 minutes. And who says they need decisive finishes on TV?
|
Yes, I assume they will suck, because with 8 minutes you don't have a lot of time to build to a finish, and it just turns into spot-spot-spot-finish. If you're working a shorter match, you're limited.
What would you rather see? 8 minutes of Jericho vs. Benoit, or 15 minutes?
Another benefit of long matches on TV is the improvement of less experienced workers. Batista and Orton are thrown in there with two veterans and it helps them. It must be working, because Batista's been really, really fun to watch for me.
Quote:
|
The point is, when the WWE was doing really well they had shorter matches. Now they have too many long matches and all their business drivers are down. I'm not saying thats the reason why they are down, but it would make sense to argue that they should go back to the formula that was successful.
|
My point is, WWE has changed. Starting around 1998, with the super emergence of McMahon, Foley, and Austin, and later with guys like Rock, Angle, and Jericho on the scene, plus, pretty damned good storylines, the non-wrestling part of the show was hitting on all cylinders. WWE played to its strengths, which was putting on hilarious and awesome storylines and skits.
McMahon's played out; Austin, Foley, and Rock are gone; Angle's Professor X; Jericho is stil Jericho, but his midcard face Jericho. Now, their strengths lies in guys who can put out *** matches regularly, so they should play to that, and become more of a wrestling show. They haven't done enough, I feel; we're still only getting about 45 minutes of wrestling, and that usually involves a snoozefest women's match. WWE actually has an assortment of capable undercard workers that can put on entertaining TV matches - especially since there's so much useless crap on the shows right now.