tag team matches

ok i hate to be a jerk but i hate matches when they tema up random people who arent even a team (like most 8 man tag team matches or stuff like that). i like 3 way matches and 4 way and armaggedon or even tag team straight matches. but those matches effect the storyline in no way and are just a way to takeup space and use big names.. oh wait thats raw..

[OssMan]

The matches where they put two wrestlers together (ie. Chris Benoit and Shawn Michaels or the Eight man tag match tommorow) are OK, because they're usually just building up to the next PPV. The real tag matches that suck are the ones in the actual tag division of wrestling (Scotty and Rikishi).

[Moongoose Mcqueen]

Ya, they're usually just to build up the fued of the upcoming ppv between the faces and heels and don't mean much more than that.
It can be good when they randomly team up two superstars as a tag team though. Jericho/Benoit vs HHH/Austin, that was an awsome match and tag team fued. Same with the Rock N Sock connection and Kane/Xpac.

[KillerWolf]

i agree 100%, glycerine. it is soooo ****ing annoying. i would rather see a one on one match that MEANT SOMETHING than the same old bullshit, throw-away, pointless, meaningless tag team matches every week.

and to anyone who condons what theyre doing by showing bullshit on television and saving the matches PEOPLE WANT TO SEE for ppv, i say you are part of the problem. i havnt seen a ppv in years. why? because the television programming generally sucks. if wwe wants people to buy thier ppvs then they need to make the tv programs exciting again.

when was the last time a world title changed hands on RAW?

long ****ing time. why? because we dont get world title main events. we get meaningless tag team matches where it doesnt even matter who wins or loses.

[Tiken]

The entire Tag Team division seems to be dead, Vince has destroyed La Resistance, given no time what so ever to the Bash'em Bros, Not done anything all to important with the Dudleys, ripped Booker and RVD apart, killed Val and Lance.

But of course the Tag Team scene died when WWE split into Smackdown and RAW.

[OssMan]

You forgot WGTT, Jindrak and Cade, and APA.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by shock&awe i agree 100%, glycerine. it is soooo ****ing annoying. i would rather see a one on one match that MEANT SOMETHING than the same old bullshit, throw-away, pointless, meaningless tag team matches every week. and to anyone who condons what theyre doing by showing bullshit on television and saving the matches PEOPLE WANT TO SEE for ppv, i say you are part of the problem. i havnt seen a ppv in years. why? because the television programming generally sucks. if wwe wants people to buy thier ppvs then they need to make the tv programs exciting again. when was the last time a world title changed hands on RAW? long ****ing time. why? because we dont get world title main events. we get meaningless tag team matches where it doesnt even matter who wins or loses.

The idea behind wrestling feuds is that they build them up during TV, and culminate with a big pay per view match that brings in the dough. Let's say Benoit was defending against Triple H at Backlash. If they gave us Triple H vs. Benoit on RAW, then it would lower the excitement for their match at the pay per view, because they'd already fought once. However, by having a match like Benoit and HBK vs. Triple H and Orton, they're letting the two men fight each other on TV without giving away what it's going to be like in the one-on-one situation.

It's just how pro wrestling works.

[Rock Bottom]

Benoit and Michaels own as a tag team.

[KillerWolf]

Originally Posted by Mr Sunday Night The idea behind wrestling feuds is that they build them up during TV, and culminate with a big pay per view match that brings in the dough. Let's say Benoit was defending against Triple H at Backlash. If they gave us Triple H vs. Benoit on RAW, then it would lower the excitement for their match at the pay per view, because they'd already fought once. However, by having a match like Benoit and HBK vs. Triple H and Orton, they're letting the two men fight each other on TV without giving away what it's going to be like in the one-on-one situation. It's just how pro wrestling works.

ohhhhhhhh, wellll, ok professor...
i still say they would make more money from ppvs if they made wrestling more exciting on a daily basis rather than showing the same predictable garbage every week. back in '98, '99, & 2000 i used to watch the ppvs. now, with the sorry state of regular tv programming the ppvs just dont seem worth it. and most people i know who USED to watch ppvs feel the same way. if what youre used to seeing isnt interesting why pay 40 bucks, especially when feuds and what-not are rarely settled at a ppv.

[Moongoose Mcqueen]

The tag team division is definitely in shambles, on both shows. I actually don't think the two shows combined even have a decent tag division. On Raw Batista and Flair will probably just hold those belts since they have no competititon, other than Hurricane and Rosey.
And on Smackdown they've split up every team they had except for rikishi and scotty, which is a boring attempt at too cool.
Its too bad they couldn't just sign jeff hardy and road dogg and reform two of the better tag teams we've seen, because they're not doing much with Matt Hardy on raw anymore, and even less with Billy Gunn on Smackdown.
Its sad to look at the division lately compared to say 2000, when it was at its most stacked.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by shock&awe ohhhhhhhh, wellll, ok professor... i still say they would make more money from ppvs if they made wrestling more exciting on a daily basis rather than showing the same predictable garbage every week. back in '98, '99, & 2000 i used to watch the ppvs. now, with the sorry state of regular tv programming the ppvs just dont seem worth it. and most people i know who USED to watch ppvs feel the same way. if what youre used to seeing isnt interesting why pay 40 bucks, especially when feuds and what-not are rarely settled at a ppv.

If by calling me "professor" you were trying to insult me, then at you, because it didn't work.

And how exactly would you make WWE TV less predictable? Instead of just bitching about it, why don't you actually make some suggestions, that way you don't sound like a whiny little asshole.

[The CyNick]

Someone could also argue that in the 80s when PPV was new, they had way worse TV than you see now (each show was basically 5 squash matches + 1 mid card competitive match) and that built to PPVs. The PPVs drew just fine back then.

The key to building up a PPV is to make people feel they have to spend money to see a certain match (or multiple matches). When you give them away for free every week why would anyone bother spending money for a PPV when they can see the same stuff for free?

WCW gave away plenty of PPV matches on free TV, and they are no longer in business. Now, that wasn't the reason they went out of business, but it didn't help either.

In terms of title changes, thats a booking philosophy that doesn't really have a right answer. But if you look at the WWE's best year financially (from Mania 16-17) they had 6 world title changes and all of them were on PPV, none on TV. During that time ratings were high, and profits were through the roof.

This past year there was a world title change on Smackdown for the first time in a long time, and it really didn't do all that much for TV ratings, as the numbers stayed flat. So I dont see where having a whole bunch of title changes on TV will do anything for business.

As far as the tag team issue goes, I like them. I think its a great way to get the stars on TV for free in matches without having to give away potential money making PPV matches.

[KillerWolf]

Originally Posted by Mr Sunday Night If by calling me "professor" you were trying to insult me, then at you, because it didn't work. And how exactly would you make WWE TV less predictable? Instead of just bitching about it, why don't you actually make some suggestions, that way you don't sound like a whiny little asshole.

ok tough guy. here's a suggestion. what if they stopped having pointless, throw-away, meaningless tag matches for main events.

wanna see predictable. i predict that the main event for the raw after next will be some sort of tag match involving some form of evolution.

[KillerWolf]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Someone could also argue that in the 80s when PPV was new, they had way worse TV than you see now (each show was basically 5 squash matches + 1 mid card competitive match) and that built to PPVs. The PPVs drew just fine back then. The key to building up a PPV is to make people feel they have to spend money to see a certain match (or multiple matches). When you give them away for free every week why would anyone bother spending money for a PPV when they can see the same stuff for free? WCW gave away plenty of PPV matches on free TV, and they are no longer in business. Now, that wasn't the reason they went out of business, but it didn't help either. In terms of title changes, thats a booking philosophy that doesn't really have a right answer. But if you look at the WWE's best year financially (from Mania 16-17) they had 6 world title changes and all of them were on PPV, none on TV. During that time ratings were high, and profits were through the roof. This past year there was a world title change on Smackdown for the first time in a long time, and it really didn't do all that much for TV ratings, as the numbers stayed flat. So I dont see where having a whole bunch of title changes on TV will do anything for business. As far as the tag team issue goes, I like them. I think its a great way to get the stars on TV for free in matches without having to give away potential money making PPV matches.

i DO see your point. but i just remember a time when monday night raw was not the same f ing show every week. and it was basically during the monday night wars, when their was competion. when wrestling was really hot (96-2000) it was hot because the tv programs were good. and i bet they had better ppv ratings as well-because people were interested.
so, i still stand by my theory that if the tv shows are hot, people will be more interested in the ppvs.

[Moongoose Mcqueen]

Originally Posted by shock&awe so, i still stand by my theory that if the tv shows are hot, people will be more interested in the ppvs.

I agree, better tv = more interest = better buyrates. I also agree that there needs to be something unique to make a PPV worth buying too. WWE during the really hot monday night war era was able to find the perfect balance by providing eventful, and unpredictable entertaining shows, while building for the big ppvs.

[tucsonspeed6]

I understand where shock is coming from, but I don't think that currently this is as bad as what it was say....a year ago. A year ago, they'd take two faces and slap them together in a match against their heel counterparts to hype up a match that would be coming up on the next ppv. For instance, assuming that Evolution didn't exist, they would tag Randy Orton and Christian together and face them against Mick Foley and Jericho. Week in and week out they would do this and it got boring fast. Today, they still do it, but not as much. Take for example, HHH vs. Shelton Benjamin. It's the main event, and it's telling a story that hasn't been so over simplified that you want to smash yourself in the head because it's the same thing you saw a hundred times before.

As for the world title changing hands on Raw, yeah...they need to do something about that, and I know that everyone would then say "I didn't watch that episode of Raw. I didn't know they were going to have a title match." but the truth is, even if they told you that there was going to be a title match, you still wouldn't watch because you'd know that the title wouldn't really change hands. If they want people to take them seriously next time they have a title match on Raw, they should actually have the title change hands every once in a while. That way, when they say "Next week we're gonna have a match for the title," in the back of everyone's mind that little voice that says "He'll retain." or "It'll be a squash match" won't be there anymore, and the next thing you know ratings for Raw are consistantly back up to what's expected.

[Moongoose Mcqueen]

Ya, I can't think of the last time the title changed hands on Raw, which is probably cuz it hasn't changed hands much.
I remember thinking that it actually might at the Raw in San Antonio where Shawn Michaels challenged but it didn't.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by tucsonspeed6 I understand where shock is coming from, but I don't think that currently this is as bad as what it was say....a year ago. A year ago, they'd take two faces and slap them together in a match against their heel counterparts to hype up a match that would be coming up on the next ppv. For instance, assuming that Evolution didn't exist, they would tag Randy Orton and Christian together and face them against Mick Foley and Jericho. Week in and week out they would do this and it got boring fast. Today, they still do it, but not as much. Take for example, HHH vs. Shelton Benjamin. It's the main event, and it's telling a story that hasn't been so over simplified that you want to smash yourself in the head because it's the same thing you saw a hundred times before. As for the world title changing hands on Raw, yeah...they need to do something about that, and I know that everyone would then say "I didn't watch that episode of Raw. I didn't know they were going to have a title match." but the truth is, even if they told you that there was going to be a title match, you still wouldn't watch because you'd know that the title wouldn't really change hands. If they want people to take them seriously next time they have a title match on Raw, they should actually have the title change hands every once in a while. That way, when they say "Next week we're gonna have a match for the title," in the back of everyone's mind that little voice that says "He'll retain." or "It'll be a squash match" won't be there anymore, and the next thing you know ratings for Raw are consistantly back up to what's expected.

Again, I'll say, the WWE title changed hands on Smackdown, and it didn't spike ratings.

People will watch the TV and order PPVs when the storylines are compelling and the charcters are pushed properly. It has nothing to do with tag team matches, title matches, or much of anything else.

[KillerWolf]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Again, I'll say, the WWE title changed hands on Smackdown, and it didn't spike ratings. People will watch the TV and order PPVs when the storylines are compelling and the charcters are pushed properly. It has nothing to do with tag team matches, title matches, or much of anything else.

u r 100% correct

[The Mackem]

I remember a few title changes on Raw but they were always daft things like when Kane won the belt and then lost it a few days later or something. Then there was that time that Jericho beat HHH but a few days later McMahon or somebody came out and said that it wasn't a legit title change and went off at people like Earl Hebner. They're always pretty pointless title changes.

[Moongoose Mcqueen]

Originally Posted by The Mackem I remember a few title changes on Raw but they were always daft things like when Kane won the belt and then lost it a few days later or something. Then there was that time that Jericho beat HHH but a few days later McMahon or somebody came out and said that it wasn't a legit title change and went off at people like Earl Hebner. They're always pretty pointless title changes.

Ya, that whole thing with Jericho was awsome. It was after the commercial break that HHH and Stephanie stripped him of the title, and it "didn't happen" but the jerichoholics know it counted. Other great title changes were Foley winning the belt, and HHH winning the belt the first time were all on Raw, and the time Stone Cold won it back of Taker because he booked himself a title shot as CEO.
But I agree that its not just the title change that makes it work, its the storyline and pushing of characters that go into it.