Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

NOV WRESTLING DISCUSSION


RIPPA

Recommended Posts

My commitment to the Network finally ends this month.  I will miss those six shows.  Though I probably would have already seen them if I'd watched the Network anytime in the past two months.

 

What does WWE do if the Network never grows to the numbers it needs to be profitable?  Ideally, they need to not just cover costs, but also make have enough subscribers to offset lost DVD and PPV sales.  Do they simply churn along at 700k subscribers?  Shut it down and try to go back to the PPV buyrate model?  Having damaged their relationship with satellite providers and cable companies, they'd probably be in a weak position if they have to start relying on buyrates again.

 

Also, they've spent the last couple PPV's burying "stupid" fans who still buy individual PPVs.  I kinda want to see what the argument would be for why those fans should start buying B-level PPVs again.  They've started conditioning their fanbase that PPVs are worth about $10 a month, so it may be hard to convince casual fans to shell out $50 again.  Not a problem if product is "can't miss", but when's the last time the WWE was can't miss on a regular basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long-time lurker, used to post a lot but, well, life is busy. Got an honest question for ya folks:

 

Does anybody ever consider how long it took some WWE wrestlers to become the top stars? I ask because there's always the talk about blown chances, pushes, and de-pushes of guys like Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, Cesaro, et cetera. with seemingly zero acknowledgement that those who came before didn't rocket to the top within a month of their debut. Austin, Michaels, Hart, and many others spent years in lower-to-midcard matches before the inevitable ascent to the top of the card.

 

Two things I realize: for one, the business is radically different than years past, wth only one big-name company to work for. On the other hand, some of the new guys I mentioned are obviously oozing talent and charisma, and I get how frustrating it can be to see potential squandered.

 

What's the problem, then? Is it fans' impatience, demanding immediate pushes for their favorite new guys? Or is it just not possible to have somebody like Dean Ambrose start where Steve Austin started, lower on the card, and with years of work, climb to the top?

 

 

EDIT to add that I really haven't been able to follow WWE since the last Mania, mostly due to time and not having the expendable income for the Network after the original commitment (nor for the kind of cable package that comes with DVR), but I more or less still follow what's going on via the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two problems, one is more TV so guys get over exposed. Storylines that could take 6 months happen in 1. For example Kofi Kingston vs. Dolph Ziggler a few years back was actually a really hot feud because they were putting on great matches over the Intercontinental Title. After about 4 weeks it wasn't hot because they'd wrestled each other ever week - and then wrestled each other so much more after that. They were just on together too much for it to mean anything. This means there has to be quicker upward mobility OR the midcard feuds have to be well thought out affairs otherwise the character is perceived as stagnant - Cesaro.

 

This leads to problem two, the midcard titles feel like consolation prizes to guys who aren't moving up as opposed to valuable belts they want to hold. In the first year of RAW Shawn Michaels was the top heel on the show and it was built around him being a douchey IC champ. He had that spot because the title was that big a deal. The last time the IC title was truly meaningful was when Drew Mac had it. He was so dominant as a champ and presented as such a WINNER, that at that point in time it was the most elusive and this most important belt in the company. 

 

It's really a matter of giving these guys stuff to do in the middle of the card and making that stuff important, even main event level important on sporadic occasions. Shit Bam Bam Bigelow and Doink were a huge feud one show. This is why Dean/Rollins was a great idea because it was a hot story to give them something to do, and it sometimes took center stage of the show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another underlying problem is the fact that most of the roster just stays the same for years and years. Fuck myself for bringing him up, but Zack Ryder is an example of this. What has changed with Zack in the last 6 years? He's gotten a couple of pushes here or there, but he still the same asshole he was after he split from Edge.

 

Like, you could tell the people they want to become big stars because they've repackaged them when what they are doing isn't working. The internet makes fun of it, but if something clearly isn't working, you need to fix it. So many big names in wrestling history went through numerous gimmick changes before finding the one that clicks. Yet, so little of the current roster hasn't.

 

Which is why I think NXT really isn't doing much help for the newer guys. That tag team that debuted on Main Event a month or so ago went over like a fart in church, and from what I read in the NXT thread, they are still doing the same shit. Why? Emma's gimmick is terrible on the surface, but people make excuses for it failing on the main roster, wut? Shit like that. idk. I am cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

One of the important things to remember is that in that period of time, the Intercontinental title was seen as the "workhorse" title; the one for the people who may not have been ready for the main event, or even be seen as main event material, but who clearly had the talent to be a midcard threat.  It's entirely possible that in that era, Cesaro could have easily been a memorable IC champion, as opposed to being Barry Horowitz Nouveau.

 

Which is one of the points in favor of dropping the US title and making the IC title the workhorse belt again, though that would entail attempting to make anyone other than John Cena the top five babyfaces in the company and not going out of the way to make anyone not in the main event look like the JOB Squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike S. brings up a very valid point. Not everyone is destined to be a World Champ. Unfortunately, years of hotshotting the title(s) made it  seem like anyone could be champ even if it was only for a week or two. The way Lesnar is being booked is definitely a step in the right direction. We shouldn't see the main belt change hands on RAW. It should be a PPV thing. If you stay the course, the fallout is elevation of the IC title to being a big deal once again. If y'all remember back in the day that's why WWF had the IC title and WCW had the TV belt, these were for the number one contender, and these were the titles that you could see change hands on free TV.

 

One other thing, not everyone needs a title to be over. In his WWF career, Rowdy Roddy Piper never got the big one and he was the #2 in the company for a long time. Sting was always more interesting chasing Flair than being the champ. Guys like Bray Wyatt and Dean Ambrose shouldn't even be concerned with titles. Ambrose should just be about revenge for real and perceived slights and Bray Wyatt should be above the whole title thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm losing count on how I'm supposed to be a true proper wrestling fan nowadays.

Its easier if I just sit and accept everything as is with no criticism, right?

My displeasure is my fault alone and that no one will ever be the stars of the Attitude Era, correct?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm losing count on how I'm supposed to be a true proper wrestling fan nowadays.

Its easier if I just sit and accept everything as is with no criticism, right?

My displeasure is my fault alone and that no one will ever be the stars of the Attitude Era, correct?

 

I think I'm at that point myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite thing in wrestling right now is Mercury and Noble.

Needs a Brisco and Paterson skit to put them over the edge, give em a tag title run only to lose to Ryback.

 

Sadly, nothing Mercury and Noble ever do will be as awesome as Brisco & Patterson vs. the Mean Street Posse.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm losing count on how I'm supposed to be a true proper wrestling fan nowadays.

Its easier if I just sit and accept everything as is with no criticism, right?

My displeasure is my fault alone and that no one will ever be the stars of the Attitude Era, correct?

The complaining about Vince not pushing the flavor of the day has made the complaints of real wrestling fans like you fall on deaf ears. Problem is, I don't think Vince is the issue. At least he has proven he can make a star, start a boom period. Stephanie has done nothing of note, Triple H is still paying himself more than almost anyone for Mania 30 and booking himself in a nostalgia match (rather than someone who could use the rub) with Rock. They don't have the ability nor desire to change the status quo. In other words, you're pissing in the wind at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody ever consider how long it took some WWE wrestlers to become the top stars? I ask because there's always the talk about blown chances, pushes, and de-pushes of guys like Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, Cesaro, et cetera. with seemingly zero acknowledgement that those who came before didn't rocket to the top within a month of their debut. Austin, Michaels, Hart, and many others spent years in lower-to-midcard matches before the inevitable ascent to the top of the card.

 

another factor is the exposure these guys get before they join the WWE. look at Bryan. he'd been wrestling on the independent scene for over 10 years. he'd showcased his abilities all over the world, and has been a multi-time champion in a variety of places.

compare that with the 80s or early 90s when it was more like a guy just appeared in WWF, since you'd never seen him before. 

 

when you know how high a guy can get (no RVD), it's tough to see them relegated to some feud which holds no consequence or import. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that not everyone gets to be a World Champion. However I'd never tell anyone that they can't root for their guy to be a world champion. I was absolutely resigned to the idea that Daniel Bryan wasn't going to be WWE champ when he came in. I thought it was good enough that a guy who busted his ass for 60 people in a rec hall was getting a decent pay check and an action figure. Then he started to catch on and I thought "FUCK IT DB FOREVER" and it made Wrestlemania a 1000x more awesome.

 

I think people could live if their favorite is just doing something cool on TV. I don't see Cesaro as a World Champion, though I bet he could pull of a Kurt Angle style character off and be that guy 4-5 levels from the top that is in the title mix and maybe gets it every once in a while. I think what most people wouldn't complain about where their guy is on the card if their favorite wrestler was just DOING SOMETHING. I hate seeing quality guys just fart around and spin wheels. I cried a thousand tears for Del Rio.

 

Dolph Ziggler after his win at the PPV said that just hanging with Cesaro is something most guys would hang their hat on. They could say "I hung with that guy" win/lose/draw that's impressive. In just a couple of sentences he made Cesaro sound he was fucking Kane. But it all felt hollow since Cesaro hasn't done shit to prove he's someone that people can celebrate just surviving. 

 

Have they done a World's Strongest deal with Mark Henry and Cesaro? I feel like that's a natural bad ass feud that would do wonders for both guys. You could have them do feats of strength every week to impress each other for weeks before they ever even touch each other. 

 

 

We are starting out negative...how about the greatness that is ACH? Or we could cry about how some of the overrated NXT guys aren't being pushed by Vince? Either or.

ACH is a charismatic mother fucker man. I dig him fo sho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long-time lurker, used to post a lot but, well, life is busy. Got an honest question for ya folks:

 

Does anybody ever consider how long it took some WWE wrestlers to become the top stars? I ask because there's always the talk about blown chances, pushes, and de-pushes of guys like Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, Cesaro, et cetera. with seemingly zero acknowledgement that those who came before didn't rocket to the top within a month of their debut. Austin, Michaels, Hart, and many others spent years in lower-to-midcard matches before the inevitable ascent to the top of the card.

 

Two things I realize: for one, the business is radically different than years past, wth only one big-name company to work for. On the other hand, some of the new guys I mentioned are obviously oozing talent and charisma, and I get how frustrating it can be to see potential squandered.

 

What's the problem, then? Is it fans' impatience, demanding immediate pushes for their favorite new guys? Or is it just not possible to have somebody like Dean Ambrose start where Steve Austin started, lower on the card, and with years of work, climb to the top?

 

 

EDIT to add that I really haven't been able to follow WWE since the last Mania, mostly due to time and not having the expendable income for the Network after the original commitment (nor for the kind of cable package that comes with DVR), but I more or less still follow what's going on via the net.

Actually! This is timely. 

 

Mookieghana/Chris was kind (and as always, skilled) enough to crunch some numbers that I was curious about which is relevant to this:

 

http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2014/10/did-smackdown-usher-in-era-of-even.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't see the main belt change hands on RAW. It should be a PPV thing.

 

It pretty much hasn't changed on RAW for several years, unless it's been a MITB cash-in or a injury-related vacation or similar:

 

WWE Title Changes on RAW:

 

Vacated on RAW in June 2014 & September 2013: (Injury & Dusty Finish respectively)

 

Raw July 2011 - That Mysterio/Cena bullshit when CM Punk had walked off with the title

 

Raw November 2010 - Miz cashes in MITB

 

Raw June 2009 - Orton wins title after Batista has to vacate title due to injury

 

Raw July 2006 - Edge wins title after RVD busted for pot

 

In addition, Jericho won the WHT on RAW in November 2008 - Vince wanted to experiment with a title change on PPV to boost next right RAW ratings or something, and then have Jericho win the title belt. CM Punk did a successful WHT cash-in in June 2008. Before that, you're going back to HHH being awarded the belt by Bischoff.

 

---------------

 

The 'Smackdown Title' frequently changed hands on free TV, but this has really not been the case for the RAW belt. I'm just saying - let's not burn strawmen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great work by that dude once again. For some guys we do have to factor in whether the losses were clean/DQ because like say Rusev.. he has lost a couple matches by DQ or count out but he's never been pinned and overall is super protected right now. It's a big reason why his act is so hot. Lana is probably the biggest reason but Rusev's in-ring work has been great and being so protected is another part of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...