DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."

[Damian Rey]

Dusty Rhodes didn't take his craft seriously since he was a fat fuck who c ate cheeseburgers all day. #CyNickLogic

[thekrow]

Think about it from the side of the promoter!


In the wrestling industry its impossible to make everyone happy.


If you keep only making a few certain guys credible, people on forums and on facebook will constantly say how "Youre not fair to not push this guy" and they will do this for any and every guy. So company's fall into the trap of trying to make everyone look credible and then no one looks credible.
In CHW at least...you got people who you know are there to job...like Robb Banks...CHW also gets a lot of, "Why don't you push guys Z or Y" but CHW knows that pushing everyone will mean NO ONE gets pushed and leads to a worst product!


A lot of fan's don't realize what its like behind the scenes of the wrestle industry.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey Dusty Rhodes didn't take his craft seriously since he was a fat fuck who c ate cheeseburgers all day. #CyNickLogic

If Kevin Owens can prove he can draw like Dusty did, he can eat whatever he wants.

[Damian Rey]

Shut the fuck up. Pretending you're a wrestler in your mom's backyard is not equivalent to being in the wresting industry. Go dive off a cliff.

[Damian Rey]

Don't you remember the pushes they got after doing so fan? That's how you build credible headliners. Losing is failing in an upward direction.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey Don't you remember the pushes they got after doing so fan? That's how you build credible headliners. Losing is failing in an upward direction.

So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

[DAMN iNATOR]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

No, but they SHOULD win singles matches more than barely over 70% of the time.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments.

and

B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January.

What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue.

This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows.

Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort.

This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments. and B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January. What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue. This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows. Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort. This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy.

I gotta admit, I have no idea what ad hominem means. I hear it now and then, but goes over my head.

People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray.

NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of.

I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people.

You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

Except for the last 10+ years where they haven't created any new stars, basically since they've gotten and stayed further and further away from the ladder system mentioned above.

Originally Posted by The CyNick You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about.

No you don't have to turn all TV into squash matches. All we're saying is don't have two guys basically rehash the same segments and matches week after week just because they're feuding. And no, adding tag matches or clusterfuck multiman tag team matches are not variants when you also have those matches repeatedly. No one is saying you can't have feuding guys have the occasional match on TV, just don't do it EVERY week. For example, have guys face jobbers/lowercard guys every other week instead of having the same matches/segments every week.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I gotta admit, I have no idea what ad hominem means. I hear it now and then, but goes over my head. People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray. NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of. I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people. You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

I'm not going to address the whole thing, because most of it is just...yeck, but I will correct you: No, squash matches aren't the only way to do that. John Cena has been very well protected, as has Randy Orton, as has The Undertaker, as is Brock Lesnar now. When Roman Reigns got pinned at Elimination Chamber '14, it was his second ever pinfall loss in WWE. That's 15 months into his WWE stint. Look at what the WWE did with Rusev.

The idea that you have to do squashes to keep guys strong is false. I would do more squashes, don't get me wrong. I think some of the girls could really get something out of it. Bring in Evie to put over the new heel Paige as she builds momentum for Charlotte and the Divas Title. Maybe you've heard of the KISS method? Keep It Simple, Stupid.

You say NXT appeals to a niche audience? I think NXT appeals to a niche of the WWE audience, but I think the WWE appeals to a niche of the television audience. Less people are watching wrestling than almost ever before, and a lot of that might have to do with the things that violate that KISS method, and be results from the Russo-led hot-shotting during the Attitude era, and the soap opera residue that people are now conditioned to and see right through. Why the fuck are there cameras in Triple H and Stephanie's office as they are talking about their evil schemes?

So, yes, NXT appeals to a niche section of the WWE audience -- because it's wrestling, and not so much the circus.

"In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of."

YES! That is why the WWE fucking sucks at the moment -- they're not doing that! Progress! I suppose.

[Blonde Moment]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

What they are doing now is simply not working, it is doing the exact opposite. It is the reason why aside from John Cena they have part timers. They need to have the occasional jobber in there, perhap rather than wrestle every week they sit in during a match and talk smack and maybe even cost someone a match that way.... to further the feud rather than have Cesaro lose because the Big Show needed a win before the PPV. The ratings are down because the product is STALE, the fanvorites are JOBBING OUT every other week killing their momentum.

Yep they know how to make stars .. just look at the indy talent on the main roster.... Their main issue is they do not know how to push the stars the fans create... You know the ones that give them their money....

[Damian Rey]

There isabsolutely no benefit to losing on a consistent basis. Especially when you're supposed to be a slimy shit bag who only a year ago was weaseling his way to victory after victory only to somehow forget how to win. Why would fans invest in a loser?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey There isabsolutely no benefit to losing on a consistent basis. Especially when you're supposed to be a slimy shit bag who only a year ago was weaseling his way to victory after victory only to somehow forget how to win. Why would fans invest in a loser?

Its all about progression.

Rollins weasels his way to the MITB and then the WWE title. At the beginning he lost non title matches, but still hung on to the title. In recent months his character has evolved. In storyline is because HHH tested him, and with each passing test he got stronger. Yeah he survived against Brock, but he didn't beat him. Yeah he beat Cena, but he had help. Then the worm starts to turn. He beat Sting clean, he beat Kane clean. He's won several matches in TV lately all clean. It's all part of a progression in his character. I think it will continue with Reigns and possibly turn the page on a new chapter on the growth of his character.

Through the rest of 2015 and into 2016 he will likely become a more dominant player and the fans will take the journey with him and start to get behind him. If he had been dummying the roster since 2014 as a heel there would be no journey to speak of.

You guys gotta remember, the Seth Rollins book needs to have many chapters. Ideally its a story that's told over the next 15 years not 15 months. Just remember the word progression.

[Simple Fan]

Lol, you'd take Spirit Squad vs DX over Japanese wrestling. NJPW does a really good job booking wise and the matches are always entertaining. Give me Bullet club vs Chaos over anything silly WWE does.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Simple Fan Lol, you'd take Spirit Squad vs DX over Japanese wrestling. NJPW does a really good job booking wise and the matches are always entertaining. Give me Bullet club vs Chaos over anything silly WWE does.

Diffrrent strokes

[Big Vic]

Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Big Vic Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.

Maybe, but people keep watching in droves

[Mr. Nerfect]

The internet is here to stay, guys. Sorry, but people use it these days. That's why you see tastes a-changing, not only in wrestling, but in a lot of different ways people think and digest media. To think that there could have been a "YES! Movement" behind Paul London in 2004 is absolutely mind-boggling, but things are different now.

This idea that the average wrestling fan doesn't care about the online stuff is a bit silly. Maybe they aren't as heavily invested in the product as hardcore members of the IWC, but that is why you actually need a captivating product to reel them in.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I remember when wrestling used to be a live presentation. People used to go and leave the house and actually watch that shit.

I really want Jim Cornette to sign up to these forums and just eviscerate CyNick.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid I remember when wrestling used to be a live presentation. People used to go and leave the house and actually watch that shit. I really want Jim Cornette to sign up to these forums and just eviscerate CyNick.

No matter what I said, you would say he "eviscerated" me.

I would out point him though. Guaranteed.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick No matter what I said, you would say he "eviscerated" me. I would out point him though. Guaranteed.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan If you're still gonna argue Rollins losing to Cena as if people are arguing that that's the problem, you're making it pretty clear that you're just avoiding the actual argument so that you're not put in a position to defend it.

Originally Posted by The CyNick Losing to the top face in the territory is never a step back.

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Damien Sandow is pretty great all around, too. Tons of charisma. Got pretty fucking over. ... So naturally, instead of keeping him featured at some point during the 5 hours of "A show" TV they produce weekly, they quickly blew off his feud on Raw and now he's jobbing to NXT guys in dark matches.

Originally Posted by The CyNick Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline?

Originally Posted by Noid Rollins also has a nice list of guys who have beaten him. Does your champion need to look stronger by the day? I ask, because I think champions should look strong from the start.

Originally Posted by The CyNick We've already hashed this out. Rollins shouldn't look too strong from jump otherwise he goes baby too quickly. Notice how his presentation changed from being a chicken to welcoming the next challenger. Likely the start of a babyface turn. Classic, smart, long term booking. But go ahead focus on the Viscera/mideon casket match.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I feel like I'm unwillingly sucking the consciousness of Jim Cornette into this thread, and am going to cause the poor man headaches.

[Ruien]

Just going off the title but I think everyone is credible. That is what is wrong though. There is no one who stands out anymore because everyone is on or very close to the same level as everyone else.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Ruien Just going off the title but I think everyone is credible. That is what is wrong though. There is no one who stands out anymore because everyone is on or very close to the same level as everyone else.

I think the issue is more that the people who follow dirt sheets like a certain style of product. So when they see a new guy that THEY like, they want to see them pushed to the moon.

When WWE brings in a guy, I think they take guys they see a future in and like to throw them in the deep water to see how good they are and to quickly establish them as someone in the top mix.

But a variety of things can happen, maybe the guy doesnt get over quickly, maybe they are a nightmare backstage, maybe they just run their course and come back to the middle of the pack. This has happened throughout the whole history of WWE, it's not a new thing. But people are acting like it's new.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Not at all the fact that people can tell when they hear a pin drop in the arena and shit not getting over... or they can just tell plain crap t.v. Not that at all.

[#1-norm-fan]

The "certain style of product" argument doesn't hold much weight either. I've spent plenty of time arguing with people about the indy darling type not being the kind of guys you should build a company around if you want to appeal to a more mainstream audience. I know a lot of guys here who prefer more of a "sports entertainment" product that pure "rassln'".

And the one place they can all come together on is "My God, whatever they're trying to produce right now is dog shit." They somehow manage to be so bad at the basics of pushing guys long term, building heat for matches and simply telling coherent stories. that they fail miserably on both sides of the spectrum.

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Big Vic Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.

I've thought this for awhile now.

Kinda in the "too much of a good thing" school of thought. An hour of WWE a week (pre RAW- All American Wrestling, Superstars of Wrestling), and maybe a half an hour of whatever else you could get a fix of from NWA/WCW or any regional territory with some local weekend TV time. There seemed to be more done with less.

And it is not just reflected by possibly having "too much" TV time (and squandering a lot of it on the same talent all the time), but booking these large, very impersonal venues. A live WWE wrestling event has evolved into a social event instead of a spectacle for fans, if you get what I mean.

It is one of the (myriad of) reasons for the success of NXT- and I don't just mean the tapings, but the live events. And with the possible exception of the Takeover from Barklay's Center (as there were *other things* going on), pretty much the crowds are more on the intimate side. The people who are there want to be there. They want to see the talent and enjoy the show for what it's supposed to be instead of going to simply say they were there. NXT is sort of in the same feel as ECW in the mid 90's, or a WWE house show in the early to mid 80's.

[#1-norm-fan]

They've been able to create a hot atmosphere in large venues in the past though. It just takes good booking over an extended period of time that draws in a vocal crowd who can get lost in the show as opposed to the crowds now who come for wrestling but then realize it was a bad idea when they get there and basically sit on their hands for 3 hours trying not to fall asleep.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan They've been able to create a hot atmosphere in large venues in the past though. It just takes good booking over an extended period of time that draws in a vocal crowd who can get lost in the show as opposed to the crowds now who come for wrestling but then realize it was a bad idea when they get there and basically sit on their hands for 3 hours trying not to fall asleep.

When people come back and buy tickets again its usually because they had a good time the previous show.

[#1-norm-fan]

This was 3 years ago. If only they were competent enough to roll with this instead of willingly pissing it away and leaving themselves in the situation they're in now where they're praying Roman Reigns can get to the point one day that they managed to get Ryback to then.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan This was 3 years ago. If only they were competent enough to roll with this instead of willingly pissing it away and leaving themselves in the situation they're in now where they're praying Roman Reigns can get to the point one day that they managed to get Ryback to then.

You really got a hard on for Ryback eh? He at least seems to speak up for himself. If only he was more talented.

[Ruien]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You really got a hard on for Ryback eh? He at least seems to speak up for himself. If only he was more talented.

Ryback is anazing. The WWE screwed up so bad with him.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Originally Posted by Ruien Ryback is anazing. The WWE screwed up so bad with him.

Amazingly bad in the ring.

[Ruien]

Originally Posted by DTTS Amazingly bad in the ring.

Why is he bad exactly? He keeps me entertained though all of his matches.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You really got a hard on for Ryback eh? He at least seems to speak up for himself. If only he was more talented.

I've got a "hard on" for well-booked guys with star quality. I actually like the "Vince type". I think they draw well in wrestling when booked properly, too. Ryback was a prototypical WWE superstar, they pushed him as such... and it actually worked.

If only they didn't derp it away by saying "Holy shit, this guy we made into a monster and put in the main event is getting over with the crowd! Now let's start having him lose and let it culminate with a clean loss at WrestleMania to Mark Henry!" Genius booking.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I don't think Roman Reigns is as incompetent as Ryback though. It'll be tough.

[#1-norm-fan]

Ryback > Whatever thing it is that DTTS loves

[Damian Rey]

Think there's a difference between making loads of money and having an interesting, well written product. CM Punk's pipe bomb said it best; Vince McMahon is gonna make money in spite of himself. However, just because the company is making money, it doesn't mean it can't get better or be more entertaining to the masses. The two are not mutually exclusive.