TPWW Forums - View Single Post - DISCUSSION: Invasion II (Raw vs. SD), Vince Russo's "philosophy", etc.

**Batsu** · 07-05-2004, 06:28 AM

I must be in the extreme minority here, reading the replies.

I don't think so much that the roster split is a failure; in fact, I still think it is a very good thing. The problem is, which has been repeated ad nauseum, that WWE sits on its talent, while going to the wrong side of the well for TV time. For every good thing I see on TV, I see one or two things worse.

For example... we have finally seen the elevation of great wrestlers such as Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero. Unfortunately, since WWE's creative has had a bad habit of jumping the gun, we have also been forcefed a few feuds and pushes that just simply aren't believable. The current situation with JBL is perhaps one of the worst examples since the HHH vs. The World (it seemed) sagas of 2002-2004.

Since WWE absorbed WCW, and a roster split happened, I like many others, hoped that there would be two quality shows featuring WCW vets, WWE vets, and a bunch of newcomers to keep things fresh, plus some stuff that had never been seen on WWE TV before.

WWE finally did the right thing by establishing an upper card belt and a midcard belt for both shows (though, I think the World and US championships should have been on the same show, while the WWE and IC championships should have been on the same show).
There is also one specialty belt for each show, which is great. If you wanna see women's wrestling (I don't mind it, but like all WWE wrestling, it would be nice if it weren't so "safe". With the inclusion of Jazz, and Victoria's early matches, I was excited that they might be moving away from that...but alas...) watch Raw. If you like cruiserweights, watch SmackDown.

It should be simple as to showcase what you have, have some storytelling here and there, and put on a good show. One thing I was also excited to see happen was that when the likes of Jericho, Benoit, and WWE's homegrown Kurt Angle putting on matches that got great response for the fans, WWE's actual wrestling was about to return. When the "seperate" SmackDown finally was launched, for a good while we got a great picture of that.

The way it's put on paper, WWE should be doing at least marginally well. The (pseudo) departure of Rock, the burnout and subsequent departure of Austin, and other great stars just like the departure of the 80s greats to WCW have spelled the same sort of downturn for WWE now as it did then.

I don't see the roster split as a failure, rather I just don't see creative -trying- to make it succeed anymore. I don't know who's saying what, or doing what...but it needs to seriously get into gear.

Believe me, even if they cut wrestlers, the one thing I don't want to see with the top stars we do have is a combined show all over again. With WWE so anxious to get behind HHH (I hate using him so much as a scapegoat since I liked him back in his greater days, but it's true) and other people who have a tendency to hog the spotlight, it could be some of the most unwatchable wrestling since the early 90s.

A unification at Wrestlemania could very well be too soon. (but we all know how WWE loves jumping the gun, so we just might see it)

Like I said, it's been said a million times, but they need to stick to keeping the McMahons off TV (they've been doing a pretty good job of doing this)....Stone Cold Steve Austin is gone, and even if he were here, doing the whole "evil owners" bit has long run its course (it's even lame when other feds do it).

WWE's biggest weakness is the stubborn ignorance of its past failures, closely followed by trying to repeat past successes in the exact same manner in which they were achieved, to the point of staleness.

Why is John Cena in some respects portraying a palette-swap of babyface Rock circa 2000? (Check the great promos, but the predictable match formula. He even has a "taunt" attack like The Rock's!)

Why is Randy Orton in some respects portraying a palette-swap of heel Rock circa 1998?

Why was HHH trying to be a cheap ripoff of Ric Flair back in 2003?

Why does WWE insist that that we want to see ridiculous, soap-operatic nonsense that you know is gonna be aborted (no pun intended) like the Kane/Lita thing all the time (or rather, I should just say the Katie Vick debacle.... Truly, sometimes, it does work (see Stone Cold Steve Austin), but now, it just seems like they're throwing things at the wall to see if it will stick.

Why do we have to see gimmicks like Kenzo Suzuki's, that are way misplaced in today's wrestling world? I'll reserve judgement on La Resistance (they have become The New Quebecers, anyway)...but Kenzo, not only does he seem like Tajiri without the SCOPE, but he seems like he's gone through a horrible time machine. Why not take the post-Resistance Rene Dupree route and let him be a modern day Japanese wrestler who has disdain for the USA without all the Sanjuro-wannabeisms?

What made WWE great is that in their top superstars, you had never seen them anywhere else. You might see elements of the past in them, but really, they weren't taken from anywhere else.

The Rock? Yeah, he's a bit of Hogan, and a LOT of Flair. The name might make you think of Don Muraco. However, before 1997, there was no-one exactly like The Rock.

Stone Cold Steve Austin? Sure, he might have been a repackaged version of his ECW self, with the mean streak his WCW self held. We don't even need to go into this...

a Shawn Michaels might have been seen as a classic babyface of old, but when he really broke out into his own, one could say one never saw anyone like him before.

Bret Hart was the answer to the pure wrestling that was the competition's strength, but few took it to the level he took it.

The same goes for every other wrestler worth mentioning.

What worked for past wrestlers just may not work with the current ones.

I don't think it's really fair to blame the roster split...because believe it or not, it's made watching wrestling as interesting as it can be with the absence of competition.

07-05-2004, 06:28 AM	#43
Batsu Capcom's Corporate Champ Posts: 2,571	I must be in the extreme minority here, reading the replies. I don't think so much that the roster split is a failure; in fact, I still think it is a very good thing. The problem is, which has been repeated ad nauseum, that WWE sits on its talent, while going to the wrong side of the well for TV time. For every good thing I see on TV, I see one or two things worse. For example... we have finally seen the elevation of great wrestlers such as Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero. Unfortunately, since WWE's creative has had a bad habit of jumping the gun, we have also been forcefed a few feuds and pushes that just simply aren't believable. The current situation with JBL is perhaps one of the worst examples since the HHH vs. The World (it seemed) sagas of 2002-2004. Since WWE absorbed WCW, and a roster split happened, I like many others, hoped that there would be two quality shows featuring WCW vets, WWE vets, and a bunch of newcomers to keep things fresh, plus some stuff that had never been seen on WWE TV before. WWE finally did the right thing by establishing an upper card belt and a midcard belt for both shows (though, I think the World and US championships should have been on the same show, while the WWE and IC championships should have been on the same show). There is also one specialty belt for each show, which is great. If you wanna see women's wrestling (I don't mind it, but like all WWE wrestling, it would be nice if it weren't so "safe". With the inclusion of Jazz, and Victoria's early matches, I was excited that they might be moving away from that...but alas...) watch Raw. If you like cruiserweights, watch SmackDown. It should be simple as to showcase what you have, have some storytelling here and there, and put on a good show. One thing I was also excited to see happen was that when the likes of Jericho, Benoit, and WWE's homegrown Kurt Angle putting on matches that got great response for the fans, WWE's actual wrestling was about to return. When the "seperate" SmackDown finally was launched, for a good while we got a great picture of that. The way it's put on paper, WWE should be doing at least marginally well. The (pseudo) departure of Rock, the burnout and subsequent departure of Austin, and other great stars just like the departure of the 80s greats to WCW have spelled the same sort of downturn for WWE now as it did then. I don't see the roster split as a failure, rather I just don't see creative -trying- to make it succeed anymore. I don't know who's saying what, or doing what...but it needs to seriously get into gear. Believe me, even if they cut wrestlers, the one thing I don't want to see with the top stars we do have is a combined show all over again. With WWE so anxious to get behind HHH (I hate using him so much as a scapegoat since I liked him back in his greater days, but it's true) and other people who have a tendency to hog the spotlight, it could be some of the most unwatchable wrestling since the early 90s. A unification at Wrestlemania could very well be too soon. (but we all know how WWE loves jumping the gun, so we just might see it) Like I said, it's been said a million times, but they need to stick to keeping the McMahons off TV (they've been doing a pretty good job of doing this)....Stone Cold Steve Austin is gone, and even if he were here, doing the whole "evil owners" bit has long run its course (it's even lame when other feds do it). WWE's biggest weakness is the stubborn ignorance of its past failures, closely followed by trying to repeat past successes in the exact same manner in which they were achieved, to the point of staleness. Why is John Cena in some respects portraying a palette-swap of babyface Rock circa 2000? (Check the great promos, but the predictable match formula. He even has a "taunt" attack like The Rock's!) Why is Randy Orton in some respects portraying a palette-swap of heel Rock circa 1998? Why was HHH trying to be a cheap ripoff of Ric Flair back in 2003? Why does WWE insist that that we want to see ridiculous, soap-operatic nonsense that you know is gonna be aborted (no pun intended) like the Kane/Lita thing all the time (or rather, I should just say the Katie Vick debacle.... Truly, sometimes, it does work (see Stone Cold Steve Austin), but now, it just seems like they're throwing things at the wall to see if it will stick. Why do we have to see gimmicks like Kenzo Suzuki's, that are way misplaced in today's wrestling world? I'll reserve judgement on La Resistance (they have become The New Quebecers, anyway)...but Kenzo, not only does he seem like Tajiri without the SCOPE, but he seems like he's gone through a horrible time machine. Why not take the post-Resistance Rene Dupree route and let him be a modern day Japanese wrestler who has disdain for the USA without all the Sanjuro-wannabeisms? What made WWE great is that in their top superstars, you had never seen them anywhere else. You might see elements of the past in them, but really, they weren't taken from anywhere else. The Rock? Yeah, he's a bit of Hogan, and a LOT of Flair. The name might make you think of Don Muraco. However, before 1997, there was no-one exactly like The Rock. Stone Cold Steve Austin? Sure, he might have been a repackaged version of his ECW self, with the mean streak his WCW self held. We don't even need to go into this... a Shawn Michaels might have been seen as a classic babyface of old, but when he really broke out into his own, one could say one never saw anyone like him before. Bret Hart was the answer to the pure wrestling that was the competition's strength, but few took it to the level he took it. The same goes for every other wrestler worth mentioning. What worked for past wrestlers just may not work with the current ones. I don't think it's really fair to blame the roster split...because believe it or not, it's made watching wrestling as interesting as it can be with the absence of competition.