Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

kksaints

Wasnt there an issue with German Suplexes, that they caused some neck issues because of the way people landed after them?

Stereomaniac

If there was a serious issue with them I doubt Brock Lesnar would be let use them so excessively?

Ageyev

[HTML][/HTML]

LeeJM wrote: »

Hardcore tv is one thing I havnt checked out on The Network, is there a full run of it or just bits n pieces? Is there any must see episodes?

ECW Hardcore TV
• 1993 (6/38) Missing 1-25,29,31-35,38
• 1994 (36/50) Missing 39-40, 42, 44, 46, 48-49, 51, 53, 69, 79-82
• 1995 (52/52) Complete
• 1996 (53/53) Complete
• 1997 (52/52) Complete
• 1998 (8/52) Missing 254-297

https://www.reddit.com/r/wwe_network/comments/3n2ba0/wwe_network_main_show_upload_progress/

DM_7

Dave Meltzer (via twitter)

When I was a kid, they booked guys just like Seth, the problem is they weren't the world champion, they were the wimpy manager.


One of the replies:
Someone needs to tell them that The Patriots didn't become the heels of the NFL by losing every week.

Which got me thinking, do they really believe weak personalities are what people are drawn to? Would it not make more sense to create personalities people grow to hate and dislike because of their success and cocky attitudes.

For example, people drawn to Conor McGregor and many grew to dislike him as he runs his mouth but he backs it up. They will be delighted to pay to see him fail, continue to pay until he does. Inevitability if he fails it will turn people into fans of him or at least interested in his journey as he fights his way back.

Did people pay shed loads of money to watch Floyd Mayweather because he was likable? No? Engaging, Credible, Proven, Skillful and a winner? Yes.

Back to Dave's ovservation, he is much older than me but the point stands for my youth as well. Wimpy managers to keep heat on their client made sense. Sure some wimpy wrestlers are good for variety but down the card. I think top heels (or faces) need to look like stars, need to look aspirational, look skillful or simply make people jealous.

The most confusing thing is, as a kid the cartoon heroes or wimpy villians became boring very quickly as soon as I could follow a storyline, and that was when I was pretty young so I can't buy into the idea the tv shows are booked for kids.

leggo

I don't really see what his argument is: Ric Flair's shtick was that he spent 80% of the match getting beat up before cheating, getting a bit of heat, getting beat up again then nicking a cheap win. Top-level chicken**** heels aren't a new thing. And it's not as if Seth hasn't got any clean wins either, remember how he beat the hell out of Ambrose at MITB? They booked it to protect Ambrose too but it in no way made Seth look weak. As long as they remind us occasionally that he's still an accomplished wrestler (which they do - see also: vs Cena at SummerSlam, vs Sting at NoC), it does him zero long-term damage to play coward against the likes of Kane (who he should sell for).

The record books will show Rollins as a WrestleMania main event winner and the owner of a healthy reign. He's grand.

DM_7

Its okay to be chicken **** heel but its not okay to regress to a point where people don't want to pay to see you get beaten.

Thats where Rollins is at now which is a shame, he is not interesting and when watching you are waiting for a poor finish to his match. See the today show chap randomly getting involved in the Cena match at Summerslam, Taker involved at Battleground, Kane at Extreme Rules and Payback.

The mania thing is only useful if its built upon. Miz ended Wrestlemania as WWE Champion before......

leggo

Meh, I think people are freaking out because he's in a comedy angle against Kane right now. But, to be fair, it's been one of the few entertaining things on WWE TV in recent weeks and it's kinda refreshing to have that in the middle of two serious feuds in Lesnar/Taker and Reigns/Wyatt. A month ago he carried the NoC PPV on his shoulders. I don't really see a problem tbh. What is it exactly, if you strip away pre-conceived notions put out there by old pros* and old school fans* about 'what the belt should mean'?

* Both of whom are the WORST sources of what wrestling should be in the future because they judge everything based on stuff that's already happened. Innovation isn't about doing what worked in the past.

DM_7

Stopped at meh, i have yet to find a post starting like that that leads to any decent discussion.

Stereomaniac

Let's not start insulting each other here man. Leggo made some very valid points just there.

DM_7

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Let's not start insulting each other here man. Leggo made some very valid points just there.

Thank you. You are a very nice man to be a peace keeper and make sure we all get along.

jaykhunter

Jaysus lads, either discuss things civilly or just ignore the post.

jaykhunter

DM_7 wrote: »

The most confusing thing is, as a kid the cartoon heroes or wimpy villians became boring very quickly as soon as I could follow a storyline, and that was when I was pretty young so I can't buy into the idea the tv shows are booked for kids.

FWIW I'm all for strong heels. We're in an era where entertainment value/talent will be cheered regardless, and the "but a weak champion could lose the belt any time!" mentality that Vince & Dunn ascribe to new champions has proven to not work time and time again. First runs of Jericho, Mysterio, Jeff Hardy etc. WWE have this awful jeckyl and hyde booking of Seth being a child prodigy mastermind/bumbling idiot that loses to Jamie Noble. Hasn't won on RAW since the start of August. It muddles things further in that he wrestlers like an electrifying top babyface. It's a mess but should hopefully clear itself up next year at Mania with face Seth vs Hunter.

In any case, with RAW down again (3% this week) and bells of 17 year lows and all that, it's a good thing that fictional WWE record book doesn't have to sit through RAW each week!

Stereomaniac

DM_7 wrote: »

Thank you. You are a very nice man to be a peace keeper and make sure we all get along.

Alright.

beakerjoe

Im all for innovation and new, exciting and entertaining wrestling television, but the booking of Seth is killing his credibility as a Champion.

Wrestling fans need to suspend a certain amount of disbelief, I can’t for the life of me believe Seth as a Champion or any of his current booking since Wrestlemania.

He is a chicken sh!t heel, which is fine for the mid card, but this guy is supposed to be the best in the company and the cross bearer for the E. It just isn’t logical or believable.

While I enjoy Kanes work off screen more than I really should, its not fitting of a Championship feud. The have had half the roster as well as Seth put over an aging Glen Jacobs as a credible force. Its 2015 yet Kane gets this kind of booking.... its awful stuff.

Leggo made the point of it being a fun feud sandwiched in between 2 serious feuds in Reigns/Wyatt and Brock Lesnar/Taker. Reigns has go away heat and the crowd have once again turned on him due to his poor booking and this feud has kept him down rather than elevate him. Its gone on far too long and has done very little to progress his character.

Lesnar and Taker haven’t been around to feud, its just video packages with two part timers. While they’ve done their best to promote these guys with them not around, its hard to invest in it 100% since theres been no real build up except for promo packages which for all intents and purposes have been longer than any of their matches.

Fact is WWE Raw is a dead duck and their PPVS have been good to great. Raw is their shop window for teh Network and PPV specials and with Raw being utter plop for 2/3's of it, WWE is in danger of sinking lower unless real changes are made. WWE seem to be happy with this current mould and I while plenty of their problems could be easily fixed, I have little faith that they will turn things around.

Moneymaker

Meltzer said it best. The business is the coldest it's been since 92-96 and the main problem is their top guys aren't over enough.

Booking Seth to be a complete geek is a big part of it.

Andersonisgod

If you step back from a hardcore WWE fan point of view and see it from the perspective of a casual fan. The WWE Title is supposed to represent who the best wrestler in the company is, the actual title belt isn't the prize, the real prize is what the title is supposed to represent. This is where WWE have gone so wrong with their booking at the top of the card for years and it's reached breaking point now with Seth's dismal reign. If the champion barely ever wins a match clean, if he's presented as a total geek and loses a fair share of matches to boot then how can you possibly claim that he is the best wrestler in the company? You can't, which means that the title belt is essentially a prop rather than being proof that he is the best wrestler in the company.

I could get into this more and discuss how WWE portray their heels and their main championship but I won't, I'll simply say that in an era when mma is hot and even among wrestling fans NJPW is on the rise, WWE's treatment of their champion and title is so far removed from UFC's or NJPW's that it's pretty obvious to see where they are going wrong in terms of the top of their card.

Bounty Hunter

Seth Rollins isn't portrayed as the top guy, John Cena is, simple as. How many times has Cena beaten Seth? and almost every time it was clean and while Seth was the WHC.


I actually think it's good that new day were face first too. Might sound odd but it made them so much better when they did turn heel and the turn was very natural as the crowd had already turned on them. The way they are now is something they had to naturally evolve to and in many ways I think it would have been weird if they just debuted like this. I really hope they keep pushing them strong

Blue_Dabadee

RAW really needs to go back to 2 hours. When it comes to the third hour, I want to call it a day and do something else with my spare time and pretty sure that is why people tune out after 2nd hour of RAW as well.

If it went back to 2 hours, I probably even watch Smackdown on regular basis again.

Stereomaniac

I think people make too much out of this third hour being the reason for why they aren't putting out good shows. Didn't USA look for the third hour first, I was always lead to believe that Vince McMahon thought 90 minutes was the perfect length for a wrestling show?

gerrybbadd

I dont think it'll ever go back to 3 hrs. Not with all that lost ad revenue

Blue_Dabadee

I understand that since Triple H said on podcast, that it really comes down to Vince and USA Network, but he also said that the writers find it hard/stressful to write a 3 hour show or something along those lines which is why we get so much filler on RAW.

DM_7

The third hour definitely hurts the overall audience interest for RAW and the final hour of the show consistently loses viewers. Smackdown has also struggled.

Overall, within the context of a cable network it made sense to take USA's money.

At this stage though, they need to review how they use the hour. In the end the extra hour overexposed the roster and damaged Smackdown as it means too many matches with the same people.

The first thing they should do is return a brand split. It would obviously help as they have a big roster with unused talent. They could build up someone like Sheamus or Ryback, protect a Neville better when called up if the brand returned.

On RAW, they could use the extra time to properly promote their own product or innovate something new. At the moment they are just doing the same thing as always across three hours.

Could promote the Network by utilising the NXT roster, instead of a now predictable US challenge they could promote an NXT feud in a showcase match that ties in with what is happening on NXT.

They could use their female roster as a roster, not one feud containing everyone. I would be delighted to three of four feuds amongst the women. Ita bizarre that someone like Sasha Banks wrestles so few matches. The automatic divide of women from men means you can create and protect some new stars, must see people that don't end up on a collision course with a Cena or Reigns.

Not going to go any further in throwing ideas as they are just examples.

LeeJM

Stereomaniac wrote: »

I think people make too much out of this third hour being the reason for why they aren't putting out good shows. Didn't USA look for the third hour first, I was always lead to believe that Vince McMahon thought 90 minutes was the perfect length for a wrestling show?

IMO people arent making too much out of the third hour. A 3 hour Raw followed by a 2 hour Smackdown and every 3-4 weeks a PPV/Network special has lead to everyone of any merit being overexposed. I remember in I think it was 2003 possibly 2002 they had that episode of Raw where Ric Flair challenged HHH for the title and they had the big celebration in the ring afterwards, well that episode was special as Ric was in I think 11 segments of the show without different characters telling him he could win etc.. Now in 2015 it feels like Seth Rollins or Kane are in 11 segments every week! And not just those 2, the whole roster is seen pretty much every week.

It obviously doesnt help that champions are portrayed as weak, babyfaces are generally treated as idiots, certain fan favourites are punished for being over beyond their supposed limit and some are punished for having a life outside WWE im looking at you Rusev. But all these problems are highlighted because of the third hour. Its pretty much the straw that broke the camels back in a lot of ways.

And yes USA Network did ask for the third hour. But they thought they would be getting high 3s to mid 4 ratings and possibly higher if the product was hot. Instead they are gonna be lucky to get an overall 3.0 soon. But as stated above a return to 2 hours isnt viable at the moment as they are contracted all over the world to produce 3 hours of live Monday Night Raw every week. And also those sweet sweet ad dollars are music to investors ears.

TL;DR 3 hours is a problem but just like Big Show it isnt going away anytime soon

Stereomaniac

Those are all pretty good examples of how the three hours of Raw could be used. I think there would need to be even more women than there are to effectively have a couple of feuds going, because even as it is, with two feuds we'd probably just have the same few matches spread out over a slightly longer period of time. I thought it looked like Becky Lynch was going to get into a mini-feud with Brie Bella at one stage. At the moment they could easily have Paige feuding with Natalya over Paige's conduct of late, while still having Charlotte and Becky feud with Team Bella. I mean really expand on the two threads. The NXT showcase has already been done on Monday Night Raw a few times, when we had Sami Zayn, Adrian Neville and a few others come up and take part in tag team matches. How well does something like that work if Vince is behaving unpredictably and doing things like making the match between Charlotte and Natalya end in less than 60 seconds (or something like that)? Anyway, so much more could be done with Raw. But I felt the same way when the show was 2 hours long as well so yeah.

CastorTroy

Wonder how long they've known Cena is planning on taking a break. Because it doesn't seem like they did anything to prepare. Everything seems to be going as usual.

Stereomaniac

They'll be fine without Cena being on. Also, we don't know for definite how long he'll be gone. He's been appearing in just one segment on each show for the last while really anyway.

Blue_Dabadee

They could always take something out of Bischoff's book and always have a fast pace cruiserweight style match during the latter half of second hour to prevent people from tuning out after 2 hour of the show.

Stereomaniac

The in-ring product is as healthy as it's ever been I think. If they let most of those guys go out there and just work their own kind of match with a decent amount of time, it's be great.

LeeJM

Stereomaniac wrote: »

The in-ring product is as healthy as it's ever been I think. If they let most of those guys go out there and just work their own kind of match with a decent amount of time, it's be great.

This is partly true, yes the in ring product has never been to a more consistently high standard and we are pretty much guaranteed at least 1 3 and a half to 4 * match each Monday. Unfortunately the bolded part just isnt true.While we the hardcore fans will watch and love seeing the guys and gals we know are great in the ring just go at it for 15-20 mins, the casual fans wouldnt. And its the casual fan that WWE are struggling to attract right now.

jaykhunter

Modern WWE guarantees high workrate but I think he means we could use more than the one type of match WWE book, building to suicide dives to build to near falls!