OCT WRESTLING DISCUSSION THREAD

[caley]

Blaming everything on Steph was an internet past-time during the early years of the brand split, when she was officially head of creative.

 

And let's not forget the Triple H part of that equation: "Triple H is burying Benoit/Booker/Goldberg and Stephanie is writing it."

 

In the grand pantheon of WWE Boogeymen there's Vince, then Triple H, then everyone else.  Other boogeymen: Hulk Hogan, John Laurinaitis, and Shawn Michaels.  There was also a brief Jim Ross backlash a few years ago (I remember various "Jim Ross is a terrible human being" discussions) but that seems to have mostly subsided since his retirement.

[SorceressKnight]

A big reason I think the Stephanie hate has tapered off is because, quite frankly- there's nothing "to" hate or love with Stephanie.

 

In recent years, we've kind of heard and accepted Vince McMahon micromanages the show to the point of nothing, which will crap all over any of the WWE Creative team's ideas for Vince's whims.

 

Stephanie's reign as booker is the biggest question there for what she is due to that micromanaging. To put it the best way possible: Stephanie McMahon was the booker for WWE for 13 years, through most of the 21st century, so there should be a large sample size of Stephanie McMahon writing to look at. However- can ANYONE specifically point to any tics or trademarks of Stephanie McMahon's booking that are proof it's her? Short of "she loves building the Divas' division around a group of Mean Girls-style heels" and "she's very interested in booking the woman behind the man in power", there doesn't seem to be that many trademarks of a Stephanie McMahon wrestling show there.

 

Quite simply, how can you hate Stephanie McMahon as a booker when you don't know if there's anything to hate?

[scraylo187]

Arguments about backstage mechanics via 3rd and 16th hand stories, rumors, and Meltzer gypsy palm reading IS PRO WRESTLING

 

CROSS THE LIIIIIIINE

 

also instead of white knight can we say 'dunn justice warrior'

[Greggulator]

The thing about Steph is that she's probably the best performer in the company right now. And there are a lot of good performers.

The absolute worst thing Steph does is whenever she's a babyface. Didn't she have a match where she tagged with that one-legged dude against Brock? I seem to remember that being the worst.

[Patrick B.]

Damn it, one time we got Smackdown in St. Louis and the TV main event was A-Train vs. Stephanie.

[Spritenaut 32]

I have nothing bad to say about Kevin Dunn.  He was my favorite member of the Southern Rockers.

 

[/wrestling bubble]

[The Man Known as Dan]

Damn it, one time we got Smackdown in St. Louis and the TV main event was A-Train vs. Stephanie.

I remember a Smackdown I attended were the main event was JBL and Orlando Jordan. vs. Booker T and Josh Matthews. Also in St. Louis.

[Matt D]

I think there are people on the internet who take rumors and run with them and attribute them as true and get upset and take things personally and are absolutely sensational about it.

 

Then there are people who are dogmatic about the fact you can never take any rumor as true and if it's from one of these sites it has to be discounted immediately and absolutely and you can only know what you can really know. 

 

I think both of these views are pretty ridiculous. 

 

Over time, when you follow things as closely as we do, you hear things, you start to spot patterns in rumors. Some build on each other, yes, but when there's enough smoke, there's probably some level of fire. It just might not be a towering inferno.

 

Is Kevin Dunn the Great Satan! Probably not. Is he probably someone who highly values Sports Entertainment and the casual fan over the hardcore fanbase with pro wrestling roots and is that handiwork on a lot of what we see in WWE, both in some of what we like and a lot that we don't like? Yeah, probably. Is he at war with HHH over the NXT talents as a way to entrench himself and be reactionary towards his eventual dismissal? Maybe. There are some logical points and bits of evidence you can draw upon to make that argument. It's an interesting thing to posit. Can we be sure? Absolutely not. Should someone who mentions it because they heard about it and pieced it together from what they've seen and what they feel be castigated for doing so? Not unless they're shouting and yelling and being a moron about it. Should someone be raked over coals for doubting the sources? Not unless they're outright attacking people who have come to the opposite conclusion.

 

I don't think this middle ground is all that hard to find, really. Pay attention, see patterns, make decisions for yourself based on the information available, but be conscious of where that information comes from. Don't attack people who feel strongly one way or the other. Don't take it too personally. None of this is rocket science and none of it is overly unreasonable. 

[The Nature Boy]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the even steven booking style is a Stephanie McMahon hallmark? The idea of not booking anyone to get ahead didn't come about in full force until her booking tenure. 

[Curt McGirt]

Terry Taylor came off as a decent guy on the Forever Hardcore doc, giving lots of props to ECW and even apologizing for Public Enemy getting as he put it "humiliated and fired" when he was the guy who brought them in in the first place. And that quote from the Foley book was him just being funny.

 

He wouldn't have had a career as long as he has backstage in both WCW and WWE if he didn't have some talent in doing his job.

[JohnnyJ]

Whenever I hear the name Terry Taylor it brings me back to the late 90s internet wrestling world where there was an oversimplified understanding of how/why wrestlers get over.

 

One of the constant talking points was, "Did you know Terry Taylor and Curt Hennig were given their gimmicks on the same day!!  If Terry had been given the Mr. Perfect gimmick he would've been a main eventer!!" RVD Rulez!!

[scraylo187]

Since we're wading through rumblingz and whether or not they are the devil, let's talk about the first time you were like 'holy shit backstage politics is a thing and I am fascinated!'

 

For me it was the nWo, as lame as that is. I hadn't watched in a long while and a buddy called me and was like TURN ON NITRO HOGAN IS BAD. I saw him and Razor and Diesel and was like 'this makes no sense dogs and cats are living together' and then had the Kliq explained to me and I would lose my shit every time one of them flashed the Kliq sign on camera on either show. THEY ARE SENDING EACH OTHER MESSAGES. 

[caley]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the even steven booking style is a Stephanie McMahon hallmark? The idea of not booking anyone to get ahead didn't come about in full force until her booking tenure. 

But is this a Stephanie McMahon hallmark or is it a legitimate reaction to giving big pushes to wrestlers who disappointed them? I think the Brock Lesnar situation almost single-handedly changed the idea of pushing people to the moon because it was counter-productive if they left without putting over people on their way out.  Even John Cena spent time slumming it in the mid-card/gatekeeper feuds before being given the mega-push.

[Skelemania]

Backing up the subject of Ziggler and tag teams:  There's no reason to do it in the current environment, but you know who would be an awesome tag Robert Gibson to Ziggler's Ricky Morton? 

 

 

I would like a tag team of Big E & Christian. Gives them both something to do & a reason to be on TV again. Big E could learn a lot from Christian. They're not just both black (which seems to be how WWE slaps a lot of teams together) and it had the powerhouse and technition/quickness aspect to it. Could maybe work.

[Dre013]

Unfortunately when I think of Stephanie's regime I think of the awful guest host era and the hiring of failed TV writers (along with Freddie Prinze Jr.).

[Greggulator]

I think there are people on the internet who take rumors and run with them and attribute them as true and get upset and take things personally and are absolutely sensational about it.

 

Then there are people who are dogmatic about the fact you can never take any rumor as true and if it's from one of these sites it has to be discounted immediately and absolutely and you can only know what you can really know. 

 

I think both of these views are pretty ridiculous. 

 

Over time, when you follow things as closely as we do, you hear things, you start to spot patterns in rumors. Some build on each other, yes, but when there's enough smoke, there's probably some level of fire. It just might not be a towering inferno.

 

Is Kevin Dunn the Great Satan! Probably not. Is he probably someone who highly values Sports Entertainment and the casual fan over the hardcore fanbase with pro wrestling roots and is that handiwork on a lot of what we see in WWE, both in some of what we like and a lot that we don't like? Yeah, probably. Is he at war with HHH over the NXT talents as a way to entrench himself and be reactionary towards his eventual dismissal? Maybe. There are some logical points and bits of evidence you can draw upon to make that argument. It's an interesting thing to posit. Can we be sure? Absolutely not. Should someone who mentions it because they heard about it and pieced it together from what they've seen and what they feel be castigated for doing so? Not unless they're shouting and yelling and being a moron about it. Should someone be raked over coals for doubting the sources? Not unless they're outright attacking people who have come to the opposite conclusion.

 

I don't think this middle ground is all that hard to find, really. Pay attention, see patterns, make decisions for yourself based on the information available, but be conscious of where that information comes from. Don't attack people who feel strongly one way or the other. Don't take it too personally. None of this is rocket science and none of it is overly unreasonable. 

 

I may be the strongest proponent of "I discount any and all rumors" on here. But, yes, there probably are backstage shenanigans and the like that impact stuffing instead of potatoes. I've already criticized the Observer and the NEWZ~ sites enough. (The Observer's a trade publication. I am a journalist who largely makes his bones in trade publications about the energy industry. I even worked for one about hearing aides at one point in time. It's a completely different beast, obviously, But I think I know a good one and a bad one and you can see where I stand.)

But, yeah, I don't discredit anyone from believing what they want to believe. But I do think everyone should have some degree of skepticism.

I also hate when this comes into criticism. That's essentially what we are. We're critics who watch matches and storylines unfold. We too often use news and speculation to form our opinions on the actual product. No critics alive in music or film or TV ever take the backstage politics into consideration when reviewing work. I've never read one thing Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael that even touched on the jockeying that goes on when making film. I could be wrong. But those two are excellent film critics. If I'm analyzing an entertainment product, that's who I'm going to try and ape as a critic.

Wrestling has such a niche audience that we don't have an Ebert or Kael. There are a handful of people who somehow ended up with some visibility from criticism (Brandon Stroud, Scott Keith) but they're far from being the definitive gatekeepers. (And I like Brandon. Keith, not at all.)

Here is an example of how news interferes with criticism.

 

Let's talk about Cesaro.

The thinking is he was punished for making comments about Cena and Orton and lost to Dolph 2-0 as a result.

Does that take away at all from that match being of a really good quality?

And Dolph beat Cesaro very impressively. The next night on Raw, he beat Kane -- kayfabe positioned as one of the hardest men to ever beat -- in a really competitive match. So Dolph beat Cesaro to gain credibility, and then beat a monster to gain more credibility as Cena's right-hand-man headed into Survivor Series.

If you cloud yourself away from the NEWZ~, this is a really solid build job of a character. It's leading somewhere. It's a good sub-plot slowly emerging within the greater narrative of Team Cena vs. The Authority.

If you believe the NEWZ~, then you might not see that narrative since we all love Cesaro and wish he had a better spot and it's not fair, etc.

[Web Conn]

I know there were RUMORZ that the ever allusive THEY didnt want to push Dolph as a Main Event player because the thought was he was too prone to concussions but its been 18 months since he last got concussed so maybe THEY are pushing him to the top spot again. 

[JohnnyJ]

Well, if the last two nights of televised events are any indication, I think it's pretty obvious they are.  

[Matt D]

I may be the strongest proponent of "I discount any and all rumors" on here. But, yes, there probably are backstage shenanigans and the like that impact stuffing instead of potatoes. I've already criticized the Observer and the NEWZ~ sites enough. (The Observer's a trade publication. I am a journalist who largely makes his bones in trade publications about the energy industry. I even worked for one about hearing aides at one point in time. It's a completely different beast, obviously, But I think I know a good one and a bad one and you can see where I stand.)

But, yeah, I don't discredit anyone from believing what they want to believe. But I do think everyone should have some degree of skepticism.

I also hate when this comes into criticism. That's essentially what we are. We're critics who watch matches and storylines unfold. We too often use news and speculation to form our opinions on the actual product. No critics alive in music or film or TV ever take the backstage politics into consideration when reviewing work. I've never read one thing Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael that even touched on the jockeying that goes on when making film. I could be wrong. But those two are excellent film critics. If I'm analyzing an entertainment product, that's who I'm going to try and ape as a critic.

Wrestling has such a niche audience that we don't have an Ebert or Kael. There are a handful of people who somehow ended up with some visibility from criticism (Brandon Stroud, Scott Keith) but they're far from being the definitive gatekeepers. (And I like Brandon. Keith, not at all.)

Here is an example of how news interferes with criticism.

 

Let's talk about Cesaro.

The thinking is he was punished for making comments about Cena and Orton and lost to Dolph 2-0 as a result.

Does that take away at all from that match being of a really good quality?

And Dolph beat Cesaro very impressively. The next night on Raw, he beat Kane -- kayfabe positioned as one of the hardest men to ever beat -- in a really competitive match. So Dolph beat Cesaro to gain credibility, and then beat a monster to gain more credibility as Cena's right-hand-man headed into Survivor Series.

If you cloud yourself away from the NEWZ~, this is a really solid build job of a character. It's leading somewhere. It's a good sub-plot slowly emerging within the greater narrative of Team Cena vs. The Authority.

If you believe the NEWZ~, then you might not see that narrative since we all love Cesaro and wish he had a better spot and it's not fair, etc.

 

 

The very nature of the Observer and its ilk is to rely on gossip, very often from the most disgruntled sources, those out of power. One thought is that Meltzer's sources are mostly all done and gone and he hears what he hears from who knows who. I think we'd all agree that he's best when doing either statistical analyses or historical pieces (though I still don't think those are ever structured very well; it's like learning another language. Once you get used to them, they're informative and worthwhile). Again, though, there's probably some truth in most things he reports, just by the nature of this stuff. wrestling is carny and amazing and like nothing else, both on screen and off. that's part of why we follow it.

 

We also bring years of watching, our own expectations, and years of basically feeling like we've been victimized by the company. We are a subculture of a subculture and I think there is a not entirely unfair mentality of the company that produces this thing, that when done how we like it, is one of our favorite things in the world. We see how they rewrite history in the Monday Night War show, or hear stories about how they go out of their way to hire people who know nothing about wrestling. There are all the attempts to brand themselves to reach anyone but us. A lot of times, when things we do like happen, it's because they slip under the radar. Like the end of days ECW show or the work that had been done on the website over the last couple of years. And that makes business sense. the hardcores will always be there. 

 

You can extrapolate it out further, but I do think there's a victim's mentality for wrestling fans in 2014 (and you can trace it back to the 80s pretty easily). And it's something worth thinking about more. I'd probably write more but I have to run now.

[Raziel]

Re-reading all the recent Monthly Omnibus and Promotion Specific threads has led me to a horrifying conclusion.  I call it the Henry O. Godwin's Law.

 

The longer Pro-Wrestling discussion goes on, the probability of it mirroring modern Political Discussion approaches 1.

[Greggulator]

Re-reading all the recent Monthly Omnibus and Promotion Specific threads has led me to a horrifying conclusion.  I call it the Henry O. Godwin's Law.

 

The longer Pro-Wrestling discussion goes on, the probability of it mirroring modern Political Discussion approaches 1.

 

I think the wrestling sub-culture has been way ahead of that curve for a long time. There were WCW people and WWE people during (and before) the Monday Night Wars. And also ECW people. There was certainly a crossover, since anyone obsessive enough to come on message boards to talk about this crap is OBSESSED. But I definitely had my rooting interests (ECW first, the great WCW talent second).

We're the first group to do HOT TAKES. I was talking abut this stuff on a 2400 baud when I was a freshman in high school. Any sort of the instant criticism for things like Mad Men and Breaking Bad and the like is a fairly recent trend. But rasslin' fans? We were ripping on matches and the like the first time AOL donated us nominal minutes.

[Greggulator]

 

I may be the strongest proponent of "I discount any and all rumors" on here. But, yes, there probably are backstage shenanigans and the like that impact stuffing instead of potatoes. I've already criticized the Observer and the NEWZ~ sites enough. (The Observer's a trade publication. I am a journalist who largely makes his bones in trade publications about the energy industry. I even worked for one about hearing aides at one point in time. It's a completely different beast, obviously, But I think I know a good one and a bad one and you can see where I stand.)

But, yeah, I don't discredit anyone from believing what they want to believe. But I do think everyone should have some degree of skepticism.

I also hate when this comes into criticism. That's essentially what we are. We're critics who watch matches and storylines unfold. We too often use news and speculation to form our opinions on the actual product. No critics alive in music or film or TV ever take the backstage politics into consideration when reviewing work. I've never read one thing Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael that even touched on the jockeying that goes on when making film. I could be wrong. But those two are excellent film critics. If I'm analyzing an entertainment product, that's who I'm going to try and ape as a critic.

Wrestling has such a niche audience that we don't have an Ebert or Kael. There are a handful of people who somehow ended up with some visibility from criticism (Brandon Stroud, Scott Keith) but they're far from being the definitive gatekeepers. (And I like Brandon. Keith, not at all.)

Here is an example of how news interferes with criticism.

 

Let's talk about Cesaro.

The thinking is he was punished for making comments about Cena and Orton and lost to Dolph 2-0 as a result.

Does that take away at all from that match being of a really good quality?

And Dolph beat Cesaro very impressively. The next night on Raw, he beat Kane -- kayfabe positioned as one of the hardest men to ever beat -- in a really competitive match. So Dolph beat Cesaro to gain credibility, and then beat a monster to gain more credibility as Cena's right-hand-man headed into Survivor Series.

If you cloud yourself away from the NEWZ~, this is a really solid build job of a character. It's leading somewhere. It's a good sub-plot slowly emerging within the greater narrative of Team Cena vs. The Authority.

If you believe the NEWZ~, then you might not see that narrative since we all love Cesaro and wish he had a better spot and it's not fair, etc.

 

 

The very nature of the Observer and its ilk is to rely on gossip, very often from the most disgruntled sources, those out of power. One thought is that Meltzer's sources are mostly all done and gone and he hears what he hears from who knows who. I think we'd all agree that he's best when doing either statistical analyses or historical pieces (though I still don't think those are ever structured very well; it's like learning another language. Once you get used to them, they're informative and worthwhile). Again, though, there's probably some truth in most things he reports, just by the nature of this stuff. wrestling is carny and amazing and like nothing else, both on screen and off. that's part of why we follow it.

 

We also bring years of watching, our own expectations, and years of basically feeling like we've been victimized by the company. We are a subculture of a subculture and I think there is a not entirely unfair mentality of the company that produces this thing, that when done how we like it, is one of our favorite things in the world. We see how they rewrite history in the Monday Night War show, or hear stories about how they go out of their way to hire people who know nothing about wrestling. There are all the attempts to brand themselves to reach anyone but us. A lot of times, when things we do like happen, it's because they slip under the radar. Like the end of days ECW show or the work that had been done on the website over the last couple of years. And that makes business sense. the hardcores will always be there. 

 

You can extrapolate it out further, but I do think there's a victim's mentality for wrestling fans in 2014 (and you can trace it back to the 80s pretty easily). And it's something worth thinking about more. I'd probably write more but I have to run now.

 

 

Another thing that us hardcore fans/critics should think about is that we're not the intended audience most of the time. So, should we look at what's presented to us from the perspective of who this is supposed to entertain? If you think of things that way, Cena Overcoming The Odds becomes a lot more palatable.

[Technico Support]

Why watch something you're not the intended audience for, though?  That seems like a sure route to misery.  I don't watch Teletubbies and then bitch online about its lack of a complex plot.

[Web Conn]

The WWE booking feels very stagnate to me right now because of the lack of direct competition. I still watch Raw almost every Monday night but nothing feels urgent it doesnt feel cutting edge to me anymore. That doesnt mean that it isnt compelling to a 13 year old right now. Thank god for Youtube so I can watch Indies like Beyond Wrestling and DGUSA/Evolve and international stuff like New Japan and NOAH. Products that I enjoy. 

[JohnnyJ]

 

 

Another thing that us hardcore fans/critics should think about is that we're not the intended audience most of the time. So, should we look at what's presented to us from the perspective of who this is supposed to entertain? If you think of things that way, Cena Overcoming The Odds becomes a lot more palatable.

 

Yes, except its seems like the times when we're most excited tends to coincide with pumped live crowds and bumps in the ratings. And on the other end, when we're whining about a storyline or direction, indifferent live crowds and declining ratings tend to follow.

 

The argument would make sense if Cena was setting records and we were complaining about it. But it seems like more often than not, WWE stubbornly follows a path that no one is interested in. 

 

And yes, you can argue the intended audience is kids and the kids are going home happy, cept kids are not all that difficult to please. You spend a few days hyping (no pun intended) Mojo Rawley to a five-year old and they'll want his action figure and think he should be champ.