Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

DECEMBER 2016 WRESTLING DISCUSSION... for now


Recommended Posts

RAW

Sasha Banks

Charlotte

Bayley

Dana Brooke

Alicia Fox

Nia Jax

Emma

Summer Rae (injured)

Paige (injured/suspended)

 

SMACKDOWN

Alexa Bliss

Becky Lynch

Natalya

Nikki Bella

Carmella

Naomi

Eva Marie (Shooting movie)

Mickie James (reported)

 

Each side has one woman manager who (at least for the moment don't wrestle) - Lana (Raw), Maryse (SDL)

So RAW has exactly one more woman

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that I like the idea of a women's Royal Rumble match. The Rumble is too special to dilute it with more than one match of its kind on a show. I wouldn't mind some other gimmick to determine a #1 contender for Mania for the women but two Rumble matches is overkill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sammo~! said:

I don't know that I like the idea of a women's Royal Rumble match. The Rumble is too special to dilute it with more than one match of its kind on a show. I wouldn't mind some other gimmick to determine a #1 contender for Mania for the women but two Rumble matches is overkill.

I agree with this. If they ever have a women's Royal Rumble, I feel it should take place on a women's only PPV. The women can have some regular matches, then the Royal Rumble match to finish off the show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The company has enough women to do a women's Royal Rumble. I'm not sure it has enough women to do a full PPV including any kind of battle royal, or enough women you'd trust to do double duty and work both a rumble and a 2nd match.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cristobal said:

This may be a next year thing, but I wonder if a women's Rumble match is a possibility?

I know I'm out of touch, but where does the notion that this would make money come from? Ratings for the women's segments go up, but is there anything to suggest this would sell more tickets? Curiousity factor maybe? It's not the worst idea I've ever heard, but outside of the PR pushing, I'm failing to see how this focus on women has been helping the company much. Can someone point to something suggesting such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not have a Women's Rumble? 

Because some of the women "aren't very good in the ring"? This company's had men that weren't very good since the WWWF days. Not exactly a top notch reason there.

Because they don't have enough ladies for a match? First televised Rumble had 20. And this is a company with 3 touring brands, a previous Mania with over 20 ladies in a battle royal, and plans for a 32 woman tournament,

Because it would "dilute the men's match"? Oh, you mean the match where people complained about Big Show and Kane throwing people over? Or the one where folks hated the finish because Daniel Bryan didn't run back in at #30, or sneak back in as The Bunny? Or next year where the question is do we get a LOLCENAWINZ or a "Enough with the Reigns Moonpush" for the end run? What's that? Taker might win? Oh, but I thought part timers winning big matches was a bad thing. How are those sorts of things going to be lessened by Asuka kicking a dozen people in the face or Nia Jax chucking people over until five people wise up and combine their forces to lift her over the top? Should those "spots" in a Rumble only go to Ziggler or Braun Strowman? You know, Dolph who needs a whole Spirit Squad to carry the weight of all those who are dismissive of him, and Braun the guy with the name that's been butchered 100 times on this site alone.

Because there's no storyline payoff for it?  They do double main events at Mania, right? Big match that ends Disc 1 of the DVD, Big match that ends Disc 2, HOF is Disc 3. Winner gets a guaranteed Main Event title match at Mania. Winner picks the match of her choice on either SD or RAW the following week, and you've got two months to build up the title bout. There's a payoff.

What's the Rumble, really? One big push, four or five decent pushes, two or three surprise entries for either the nostalgia or "zomg they hired that person" pop, and twenty or so folks that are getting a bonus match and paycheck after a year's worth of travel, injuries, and occasional dealings with inane dialogue. Would it really be a bad thing for the ladies in the promotion to get the same deal once a year?

If nothing else, once the match happens, once it is over, it'll mean that the biggest ladies battle royal in company history wasn't won by Santina Marella. And if the final four (1 for each corner, that if that "spot" is allowed for the ladies too) involve Sasha and Bayley, then March Madness voters can rejoice as the Final Two have some spotlight once again.

And if Bayley wins, more people will spell her name right. Bonus!

-zev

P.S. Yeah Yeah, I know. Something something white knight, settle down Indieland Somethingnetico.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's sort of like the discussion we had a while back about how women's matches shouldn't be as Irish whip-based as men's matches since women generally lack the body mass to hit the ropes effectively. I think the main problem with a women's battle royal is this:

Nia Jax - 5'10"

Charlotte - 5'10"

Alicia Fox - 5'9"

Tamina - 5'9"

Paige - 5'8"

Becky Lynch - 5'6"

Bayley - 5'6"

most of the rest of the roster - 5'5"

Alexa Bliss - 5'1"

Nikki Bella - 5'0" (although that seems weird so I wonder if Wikipedia got that wrong)

A lot of battle royal booking involves things like the the idea that people can naturally go over the top if their opponent ducks a running strike near the ropes, or that you can hit your opponent with a strike to the head near the ropes that will send them over the top. This doesn't work nearly as well when you don't have a single competitor that makes the 6'0" mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Comedian said:

A lot of battle royal booking involves things like the the idea that people can naturally go over the top if their opponent ducks a running strike near the ropes, or that you can hit your opponent with a strike to the head near the ropes that will send them over the top. This doesn't work nearly as well when you don't have a single competitor that makes the 6'0" mark.

I assume that's why all of the recent women's battle royals were middle rope elimination rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nofuture said:

I assume that's why all of the recent women's battle royals were middle rope elimination rules.

And that is a horrible rule and would most certainly waterdown the Rumble

At this point the Royal Rumble match is probably the most protected thing the WWE has.

They aren't doing a 2nd one, let alone a all women's one

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cristobal said:

How much of WWE's revenue in 2016 is ticket sales vs the Comcast deal and Network subscriptions?

According to their 9/30/16 financials live events make up 19.8% of their revenues ytd. Television is 32.4% and the network accounts for 25.7%. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CreativeControl said:

Wow, and people were so quick to call the network a failure

I appreciate the gusto but it's like a word problem where you're missing information.

1.) What's the difference in overall revenue over the years?
2.) What's that same difference controlling for the difference in the TV contracts between this one and the pre-network one?
3.) What was the share of profit from PPV buys relative to the network?
4.) How much has live event attendance fallen over the last few years?
5.) Costs and benefits of more international touring maybe?

That's, at the least, what you'd need to know, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RIPPA said:

And that is a horrible rule and would most certainly waterdown the Rumble

At this point the Royal Rumble match is probably the most protected thing the WWE has.

They aren't doing a 2nd one, let alone a all women's one

They did a second one at least one year, didn't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only remembered the won that Owen Hart won. Then I looked on Wiki

Quote

Non-PPV Royal Rumble matches
WWE has booked several Royal Rumble matches outside of the annual Royal Rumble event:

The first Royal Rumble match broadcast outside of its pay-per-view was a Tag Team Royal Rumble on June 15, 1998. Kane and Mankind won the match and earned an opportunity for the WWF Tag Team Championship against the The New Age Outlaws.
On January 11, 1999, a "Corporate Royal Rumble" involving members of The Corporation and D-Generation X was held on Raw to determine the 30th entry in the Royal Rumble that year. The match was won by Chyna, who last eliminated Mr. McMahon.
A 15-man Royal Rumble was held during the January 29, 2004 edition of SmackDown to crown a contender for Brock Lesnar's WWE Championship at No Way Out. Eddie Guerrero won the match, last eliminating Kurt Angle.
On January 14, 2008, Mr. McMahon organized a mini-Royal Rumble, involving midget wrestlers. Hornswoggle won the match.
On the January 31, 2011 episode of Raw, a Royal Rumble to crown the contender for The Miz's WWE Championship at Elimination Chamber was held. Jerry Lawler won the match, last eliminating Sheamus.
WWE has also booked two Royal Rumble matches which were never televised, both in 1994. The first, a 30-man Royal Rumble on January 17, was won by Owen Hart, last eliminating Fatu. The second, an 18-man Royal Rumble match, took place on May 9 in Osaka, Japan and was won by The Undertaker, who last eliminated Bam Bam Bigelow.

That fucking mini's one completely destroys my argument so fuck it run nothing but Royal Rumbles. Women. CWC. Announcers. Ring Crew

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RIPPA locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...