Smark Era..... Good or Bad?

[XL]

Originally Posted by Danny Electric Reading through here /wrestling forum is confusing. You have guys who dont like Cena,Reigns, Styles,Lesnar, Owens. Zayn, Balor, Ambrose etc I could go on. So tell me who you would like the belts on, who do you want people to cheer etc for? Do we really want to go back to Marc Henry headlining PPV's , I feel like sometimes people just like to bitch and moan for the sake of it and will always moan against who is being pushed and moan that someone else isn't being pushed. Then start moaning that that guy is being pushed. I don't know, I think the product is pretty strong at the moment. I think it didn't help Owens that HHH helped him win the belt and then just disappeared off the screens with no explanation , then they gave more screen time to Jericho who is made to look the stronger out of the two. From what I've seen of Owens I enjoy him in the ring and on the mic.

People will always have differing opinions, the idea that there is a concensus IWC mindest is patently wrong. It is a little difficult to sometimes marry individual thought processes together; there's a lot of "this is what I like so I reckon everybody else will love it", and a lot of presumption about that the casual fan wants versus what the hardcore fan wants.

Hate to pick on Noid again, but he's a key example of somebody you would have said was a typical IWC wrestling fan, who has now evolved to see "the bigger picture". He will have you believe that the product isn't as hot because of the vast majority of guys on the roster being very "everyman" rather than these "larger than life superheroes", yet will advocate that Shinsuke Nakamura is the next big star who should be brought up for a feud with HHH at Mania. I don't see it myself, and I can't see how the 2 streams of thought can exist in the same mind.

I also question how much the casual fan cares about things like psychology and selling, or whether these are things that longtime fans project on to other parts of the (potential) fan base. (Also don't quite get how you can call for the return of real-life superheroes yet bemoan a superhero-like comeback).

Don't get me wrong, psychology can add to a match, and makes the experience far more emersive if you know what you're looking for (look at the 2-out-of-3 Falls Tag Match at NXT Toronto, for example) but I think the importance to the casual fan is probably overstated.

Some elements of the IWC like to think of themselves about it all; they can see the strings and they love to let you know about it. "If you can't see what they were doing with the no-match between Lesnar and Goldberg then you don't understand the business" is a key theme that's been doing the rounds. JR on his podcast pretty much says this, he likens it to the NWA Champ dropping a fall in a tag match, stating that it's something that worked then so it should work today, completely ignoring the fact that what worked with limited/territory coverage has been used for the last 30 years and at this point it so transparant that it's laughable.

For me, you can dislike the Lesnar/Goldberg result because you can see the strings; another rehash at Mania. A match we've seen before, that will likely not benefit the longterm progress of the brand; Goldberg and Lesnar will likely be gone post-Mania anyway, and any heat/rub taken with them.

There's also rumours of an Orton/Taker match; another rehash, where nobody gains anything. Scratch that. Orton could beat Taker, to put himself in that bracket with Lesnar to set up a rematch between those two, but, well, another rematch.

I can pick apart 100 things that WWE do that don't make sense, but I don't think fixing those will be an instant fix to the ratings slump.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by XL People will always have differing opinions, the idea that there is a concensus IWC mindest is patently wrong. It is a little difficult to sometimes marry individual thought processes together; there's a lot of "this is what I like so I reckon everybody else will love it", and a lot of presumption about that the casual fan wants versus what the hardcore fan wants. Hate to pick on Noid again, but he's a key example of somebody you would have said was a typical IWC wrestling fan, who has now evolved to see "the bigger picture". He will have you believe that the product isn't as hot because of the vast majority of guys on the roster being very "everyman" rather than these "larger than life superheroes", yet will advocate that Shinsuke Nakamura is the next big star who should be brought up for a feud with HHH at Mania. I don't see it myself, and I can't see how the 2 streams of thought can exist in the same mind. I also question how much the casual fan cares about things like psychology and selling, or whether these are things that longtime fans project on to other parts of the (potential) fan base. (Also don't quite get how you can call for the return of real-life superheroes yet bemoan a superhero-like comeback). Don't get me wrong, psychology can add to a match, and makes the experience far more emersive if you know what you're looking for (look at the 2-out-of-3 Falls Tag Match at NXT Toronto, for example) but I think the importance to the casual fan is probably overstated. Some elements of the IWC like to think of themselves about it all; they can see the strings and they love to let you know about it. "If you can't see what they were doing with the no-match between Lesnar and Goldberg then you don't understand the business" is a key theme that's been doing the rounds. JR on his podcast pretty much says this, he likens it to the NWA Champ dropping a fall in a tag match, stating that it's something that worked then so it should work today, completely ignoring the fact that what worked with limited/territory coverage has been used for the last 30 years and at this point it so transparant that it's laughable. For me, you can dislike the Lesnar/Goldberg result because you can see the strings; another rehash at Mania. A match we've seen before, that will likely not benefit the longterm progress of the brand; Goldberg and Lesnar will likely be gone post-Mania anyway, and any heat/rub taken with them. There's also rumours of an Orton/Taker match; another rehash, where nobody gains anything. Scratch that. Orton could beat Taker, to put himself in that bracket with Lesnar to set up a rematch between those two, but, well, another rematch. I can pick apart 100 things that WWE do that don't make sense, but I don't think fixing those will be an instant fix to the ratings slump.

I love you, XL.

That being said, while we disagree on the specifics, I think we agree on the larger philosophical point.

I confess all the time to being a typical internet mark. I used to think Paul London was the best wrestler in the world, etc. A few things have started clicking in my mind. Hearing lots of smart people talk about the psychology behind booking and the industry in general, as well as just being a fan for years has turned me into a different sort of mark. I'm not longer a guy that thinks what I like is going to be what others like -- it's now that I look for things that others might like and try to determine why. It's like a mental maths puzzle, and I find that infinitely more stimulating than the current product.

When it comes to Nakamura, I think you've got one of the few guys in wrestling with star-level charisma. I'm realizing now that the guy isn't bulletproof, and I actually worry about his WWE run now. The more they try to get him to work the WWE style, the more I think "Well, he's not special anymore." I would present Nakamura as a big deal though. Have him show up on PPV and Kinshasa someone. Rinse, wash, repeat.

We differ on the psychology point, because I think it is UNDERSTATED how much psychology matters. I don't think people "look" for it, but I think when it's not there they lose interest. It's an intuition thing. And that's a large part of why ratings are so low at the moment. None of the guys working today know how to work like a Shawn Michaels, Mick Foley or Steve Austin. Or if they do, they certainly don't put it into practice.

I'm completely convinced on the Goldberg thing, by the way. I heard someone criticizing it and talking about Goldberg's cardio and how he's too old to have longer matches. Lol, why would you want Goldberg to have longer matches? It's insane to me. I also think Brock losing makes him more interesting; not less. Brock has actually lost a lot -- even since he broke the streak. He lost to Cena at Night of Champions, he lost to Seth Rollins at WrestleMania, he lost to The Undertaker at SummerSlam, and he lost in the Royal Rumble. His WrestleMania record since returning is 2-2-1. Brock is a complete professional wrestler in that he knows how to not only sell winning, but sell losing in a way that, as people say, "wins and losses don't matter." They do matter, but you can make losing matter too. Brock has ALWAYS been good at that. Goldberg...not so much.

Truth be told, I'd put Goldberg over Brock at WrestleMania again. Everyone is expecting the Brock gets his win back over Goldberg "it was nice while it lasted" shtick. Nah, go with Goldberg being Brock's kryptonite.

I'm completely with you on the Undertaker/Orton thing. That being said, because I don't really give a fuck anymore, I don't have a problem with it. Ideally, you would put someone over Taker that you'd then go and put over Brock, but whatever -- if Taker wants to do the Orton stuff, let him do the Orton stuff. At this point, as bland as I often find Randy, he's one of the closest things you have to a star, so you might as well give him some rarefied air, even if it's just so he can keep RKOing people and people think it's just that little bit more special. I have a feeling we're heading towards Undertaker vs. Cena and Orton & Bray vs. American Alpha at WrestleMania now though. So there's that.