DISCUSSION: Invasion II (Raw vs. SD), Vince Russo's "philosophy", etc.

**Heyman** · 07-03-2004, 08:35 PM

Before I start.................FINALLY.....THE ARTIST..............HAS COME *BACK* TO TEEE PEEEE DUBYA!!!!!!!!!!!!

DISCUSSION: Invasion II (Raw vs. SD), Vince Russo's "philosophy", etc.

It's been over 2 and a half years since we saw the end of the original INVASION. It has been almost 2 and a half years since we saw the ROSTER SPLIT go into place.

Do you think the WWE should have another Invasion angle? (Smackdown vs. Raw).

Here are my reasons:
[*]Fan Interest. Smackdown is sucking dick right now. Raw hasn't exactly been top notch either.
[*]No bias (atleast I think?). The last time we saw an 'invasion', the bookers were very biased towards the WWF (and made them look 'head over heels' better than the alliance). This time around? Perhaps 'both sides' can be made to look equal.....although there is a risk that the Smackdown wrestlers could be made to look inferior.
[*]Once and for all, end the FAILURE of the Roster Split (more on this later).

Does Vince's Russo's "philosophy" of "Crash TV" actually work?

In an article from the year 2000 (I'll paraphrase his exact quotes at a later date if neccessary), Vince Russo gave the following insight.

-He claimed that while HE enjoyed long 20-25 minute matches (between two superb technical wrestlers), he also realized that most marks do NOT. Therefore - Vince Russo booked matches in such a way, that matches would be MUCH shorter. Russo argued that today's fans WANT to see a quicker finish, and are FAR more interested in the STORYLINE behind matches than the match itself.

-From a personal standpoint? I would have to agree with Russo on this. Don't get me wrong - I don't totally agree with EVERYTHING that Vince Russo says. I just agree with him on this particular philosophy.

Back in the year 2000, it seemed like the WWE was doing everything right.

a) Matches were shorter

b) More backstage skits

c) The first and last segments of each show almost ALWAYS dealt with the 'main event storyline' (or whichever the "main" storyline was).

d) There were never any commerical breaks during matches.......which in today's current era, has to be one of the most ANNOYING things of all-time. Seriously - last Monday.....we saw TWO commerical breaks during the Benoit/Kane match! Give me a break!

e) Longer matches were saved for PPV's, or occasional main-event matches on TV (the last 15-20 minutes of Raw or Smackdown).

f) There was almost ALWAYS some form of storyline progression. This was one of the MOST IMPORTANT things back then. Each show, a fan could expect some form of development to occur. Nowadays? A fan could watch 2 shows in a row and see MINIMAL storyline development. This was another one of Vince's Russo's 'philosophies' by the way. Take the expected ending.....and give it a completely new twist to throw off the fans. Of course - Russo was a bit too EXTREME in this philosophy (in my opinion), but he was on the right track.

g) Save the longer matches for the main-eventers (or for guys who are WAY over with the fans). Back then - we never saw LONG matches between two guys who weren't main-eventers (or that the fans didn't really care THAT much about). Today? The WWE regularly has longer matches.....even for people that are BORING! How many times within the past month have we seen LOO-ONG tag matches between combinations of Orton/Flair/Batista verses combinations of Jericho, Edge, and Benoit?

The WWE does NOT create main-event superstars. Ultimately -the fans are the ones who create main-event superstars.

Sadly enough - I'm not sure if the WWE realizes this. Take a look at Edge and Shelton Benjamin for instance. Despite getting victories (or atleast being made to look good) over the likes of Triple H and Randy Orton, Benjamin was still getting lukewarm pops at best.

Despite Edge being made to look 5x more superior than Chris Jericho (when they've tagged together recently), Jericho has been the one who has garnered the bigger face pops.

Here are a few predictions of mine:

1) Unless Edge, Shelton Benjamin, and even Chris Benoit get better gimmicks (or something interesting ADDED to the their current gimmicks), neither men will progress beyond the point they are at. Edge and Benjamin will NEVER be accepted as main-eventers, while Benoit will continue to receive lukewarm face pops (and will still be perceived as a 'transitional' 'paper' champ).

2) Guys like John Cena, Eddie Guerrero, Brock Lesnar, and Kurt Angle would be just as 'over' today, even if the roster split had not gone into place.

I think this is the biggest thing that the WWE has to realize.

Whether you give someone 3 minutes or 10 minutes of TV time, it intially makes no difference. If the fans like the gimmick, they will respond accordingly. If the fans LIKE the gimmick, the bookers will be inclined to allot more television time NATURALLY!

In other words - give Edge, Shelton Benjamin, and Batista alll the TV time if you want, but if the fans don't CARE about them (as much as the bookers want them to), then the 'extra' TV time does NOTHING (other than being counter productive).

Which is why I want the Roster Split to end

It's obvious when you think about it. Here's what I'd like to see.

-Sometime after Summerslam, Smackdown starts invading Raw (and then vice-versa). The culmination of this "invasion" will take place at Wrestlemania (where the US/IC title, tag team titles, and World titles will be unified).

-After Wrestlemania, the rosters get unified. The WWE downsizes their roster by atleast 30% (so guys like Pulumbo, A-Train, Test, Hardcore Holly, Rikishi, Scotty 2 Hotty, Billy Gunn, and other essentially USELESS wrestlers to the WWE take a hike). Basically - any wrestler who has no UPSIDE (i.e. has had past 'failed' pushes or genuinely has no potential to draw for the company) should be canned.

-With a depth pool consisting of Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, John Cena, Mordecai, Undertaker, John Bradshaw Layfield, RVD, Kane, Rey Mysterio, Kurt Angle (if he gets cleared), and Brock Lesnar (if he returns) on almost EVERY show, there is NO FREAKIN' WAY that the WWE should EVER have a "boring" show.

Elaborating on my last point - "how can you fit these guys all on to TV?" you may ask?

Simple:

1) Cut back the time alloted to each match (as I stated earlier)

2) More backstage skits

3) I still advocate bringing back the Hardcore 24/7 belt. Not only does it get more people TV time, but it APPEALS to the marks. Remember - most fans are MARKS.....not smarks.

And more importantly - the first and last segments should almost ALWAYS go to the main-event (or main) storyline.

The fans will always cheer (or boo) a good gimmick. It should simply be the bookers goal to create good gimmicks, and push wrestlers according to crowd response. Nothing more, nothing less. Longer matches should be saved for PPV's. The TV shows should mainly focus on storyline build up (with the occasional "long" match between wrestlers at the end of shows).

07-03-2004, 08:35 PM	#1
Heyman Father of Hinduship Posts: 21,083	DISCUSSION: Invasion II (Raw vs. SD), Vince Russo's "philosophy", etc. Before I start.................FINALLY.....THE ARTIST..............HAS COME BACK TO TEEE PEEEE DUBYA!!!!!!!!!!!! DISCUSSION: Invasion II (Raw vs. SD), Vince Russo's "philosophy", etc. It's been over 2 and a half years since we saw the end of the original INVASION. It has been almost 2 and a half years since we saw the ROSTER SPLIT go into place. Do you think the WWE should have another Invasion angle? (Smackdown vs. Raw). Here are my reasons: []Fan Interest. Smackdown is sucking dick right now. Raw hasn't exactly been top notch either. []No bias (atleast I think?). The last time we saw an 'invasion', the bookers were very biased towards the WWF (and made them look 'head over heels' better than the alliance). This time around? Perhaps 'both sides' can be made to look equal.....although there is a risk that the Smackdown wrestlers could be made to look inferior. []Once and for all, end the FAILURE of the Roster Split (more on this later). Does Vince's Russo's "philosophy" of "Crash TV" actually work?* In an article from the year 2000 (I'll paraphrase his exact quotes at a later date if neccessary), Vince Russo gave the following insight. -He claimed that while HE enjoyed long 20-25 minute matches (between two superb technical wrestlers), he also realized that most marks do NOT. Therefore - Vince Russo booked matches in such a way, that matches would be MUCH shorter. Russo argued that today's fans WANT to see a quicker finish, and are FAR more interested in the STORYLINE behind matches than the match itself. -From a personal standpoint? I would have to agree with Russo on this. Don't get me wrong - I don't totally agree with EVERYTHING that Vince Russo says. I just agree with him on this particular philosophy. Back in the year 2000, it seemed like the WWE was doing everything right. a) Matches were shorter b) More backstage skits c) The first and last segments of each show almost ALWAYS dealt with the 'main event storyline' (or whichever the "main" storyline was). d) There were never any commerical breaks during matches.......which in today's current era, has to be one of the most ANNOYING things of all-time. Seriously - last Monday.....we saw TWO commerical breaks during the Benoit/Kane match! Give me a break! e) Longer matches were saved for PPV's, or occasional main-event matches on TV (the last 15-20 minutes of Raw or Smackdown). f) There was almost ALWAYS some form of storyline progression. This was one of the MOST IMPORTANT things back then. Each show, a fan could expect some form of development to occur. Nowadays? A fan could watch 2 shows in a row and see MINIMAL storyline development. This was another one of Vince's Russo's 'philosophies' by the way. Take the expected ending.....and give it a completely new twist to throw off the fans. Of course - Russo was a bit too EXTREME in this philosophy (in my opinion), but he was on the right track. g) Save the longer matches for the main-eventers (or for guys who are WAY over with the fans). Back then - we never saw LONG matches between two guys who weren't main-eventers (or that the fans didn't really care THAT much about). Today? The WWE regularly has longer matches.....even for people that are BORING! How many times within the past month have we seen LOO-ONG tag matches between combinations of Orton/Flair/Batista verses combinations of Jericho, Edge, and Benoit? The WWE does NOT create main-event superstars. Ultimately -the fans are the ones who create main-event superstars. Sadly enough - I'm not sure if the WWE realizes this. Take a look at Edge and Shelton Benjamin for instance. Despite getting victories (or atleast being made to look good) over the likes of Triple H and Randy Orton, Benjamin was still getting lukewarm pops at best. Despite Edge being made to look 5x more superior than Chris Jericho (when they've tagged together recently), Jericho has been the one who has garnered the bigger face pops. Here are a few predictions of mine: 1) Unless Edge, Shelton Benjamin, and even Chris Benoit get better gimmicks (or something interesting ADDED to the their current gimmicks), neither men will progress beyond the point they are at. Edge and Benjamin will NEVER be accepted as main-eventers, while Benoit will continue to receive lukewarm face pops (and will still be perceived as a 'transitional' 'paper' champ). 2) Guys like John Cena, Eddie Guerrero, Brock Lesnar, and Kurt Angle would be just as 'over' today, even if the roster split had not gone into place. I think this is the biggest thing that the WWE has to realize. Whether you give someone 3 minutes or 10 minutes of TV time, it intially makes no difference. If the fans like the gimmick, they will respond accordingly. If the fans LIKE the gimmick, the bookers will be inclined to allot more television time NATURALLY! In other words - give Edge, Shelton Benjamin, and Batista alll the TV time if you want, but if the fans don't CARE about them (as much as the bookers want them to), then the 'extra' TV time does NOTHING (other than being counter productive). Which is why I want the Roster Split to end It's obvious when you think about it. Here's what I'd like to see. -Sometime after Summerslam, Smackdown starts invading Raw (and then vice-versa). The culmination of this "invasion" will take place at Wrestlemania (where the US/IC title, tag team titles, and World titles will be unified). -After Wrestlemania, the rosters get unified. The WWE downsizes their roster by atleast 30% (so guys like Pulumbo, A-Train, Test, Hardcore Holly, Rikishi, Scotty 2 Hotty, Billy Gunn, and other essentially USELESS wrestlers to the WWE take a hike). Basically - any wrestler who has no UPSIDE (i.e. has had past 'failed' pushes or genuinely has no potential to draw for the company) should be canned. -With a depth pool consisting of Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, John Cena, Mordecai, Undertaker, John Bradshaw Layfield, RVD, Kane, Rey Mysterio, Kurt Angle (if he gets cleared), and Brock Lesnar (if he returns) on almost EVERY show, there is NO FREAKIN' WAY that the WWE should EVER have a "boring" show. Elaborating on my last point - "how can you fit these guys all on to TV?" you may ask? Simple: 1) Cut back the time alloted to each match (as I stated earlier) 2) More backstage skits 3) I still advocate bringing back the Hardcore 24/7 belt. Not only does it get more people TV time, but it APPEALS to the marks. Remember - most fans are MARKS.....not smarks. And more importantly - the first and last segments should almost ALWAYS go to the main-event (or main) storyline. The fans will always cheer (or boo) a good gimmick. It should simply be the bookers goal to create good gimmicks, and push wrestlers according to crowd response. Nothing more, nothing less. Longer matches should be saved for PPV's. The TV shows should mainly focus on storyline build up (with the occasional "long" match between wrestlers at the end of shows).