Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

APRIL 2017 WRESTLING DISCUSSION


RIPPA

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Brian Fowler said:

JBL also comes across really well every year at the HoF.

Hey, the neighbours thought Ted Bundy was nice.

Just saying: some of the stories about JBL are truly disturbing. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People might say it's not a smart thing to do long term, but with the lack of main roster depth right now, they really should have one set of tag champions and one women's champion that travels between shows, or all the tag teams should be on Raw and all the Women on Smackdown. I guess the argument could be made with the women that you wouldnt want to limit them to one show because you'd be limiting that young female viewer demographic to the one show too, but I think you can also approach it with the thought that the average fan would have reason to watch both shows since there are completely different "exclusive" divisions. Plus, there was that whole thing where Meltzer said that women actually tuned out when Bayley was main eventing so who knows how solid that theory is anyway. I just think it would help make each show different and solve the depth issue without too many premature NXT call ups. Plus, the great thing is that with the extra hour of Raw you would have more room to throw the tag guys in singles matches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could've been dealt with fairly simply: let's say the current tag champs are on Raw. Smackdown teams get first crack at the belts. Mini tournament, get your #1 contenders, have a match at a PPV. If Raw wins, then the next contenders come from Raw. If SD wins, Raw gets their obligated rematch but if they come up short, SD defends next against a fellow SD team. 

Doing it this way keeps things interesting and gives the roster reason to compete, and it gives the viewer more reason to be invested in the title hunt by watching both shows. 

But hey, instead let's have a hundred titles that all look the same and basically mean nothing.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple focus on Contender rankings could've replaced all the extra belts. The WWE loves to crib from UFC and while I don't watch UFC a lot I always see mentions of "fourth-ranked guy fights sixth-ranked guy" with commentary stressing that a win here moves the guy up the ranks. Surely that could be discussed in between hashtag plugs?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I mean logistics of champions working TV tapings on two/three consecutive nights as well as what brand do they tour house shows with etc etc. All things which Harley Race and Ric Flair would laugh in your face about but it's not the territories anymore

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that's why the soft brand split was great because then the house show touring didn't have to be rigidly SD or Raw crews. You could take Marty's great idea about putting importance on contendership, and now suddenly your A towns get, let's say Bayley vs Charlotte for the title, while your B towns get like Nia and Sasha in a "best of # series" to determine who gets Bayley on that weeks SD or on the next PPV (really an excuse to run the same match around the loop). It places added importance on throwaway matches. 

28 minutes ago, CreativeControl said:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Marty Sugar said:

Simple focus on Contender rankings could've replaced all the extra belts. The WWE loves to crib from UFC and while I don't watch UFC a lot I always see mentions of "fourth-ranked guy fights sixth-ranked guy" with commentary stressing that a win here moves the guy up the ranks. Surely that could be discussed in between hashtag plugs?

WWE wouldn't do anything like "real sports" does it because GOD DAMMIT WE'RE MAKING MOVIES PAL

Also, I don't watch much UFC either but, from listening to Meltzer, UFC has been getting a lot of shit from hardcores lately because they're not doing rank-based booking.  Rather, they're booking fights based on what would be a draw.  Terry Funk was right...the longer organized MMA is around, the closer it will resemble pro wrestling until they finally just say "fuck it" and start straight up working matches.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am about 12 years behind on this statement, but: 

Last night, I was watching the terrifically entertaining Rock n Roll Express vs Hansen & Kroffat in All Japan (Oct 26, 1988). Why have I never before noticed that Stan Hansen must be JBL's hero? Ring gear? Same. Moveset? Same, down to the Lariat From Hell finisher. "Cowboy"? Same.

This is far from the first match I have ever seen from Hansen. Why have I never noticed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must not have seen any pre-New Blackjacks Bradshaw or that brief period right after the brand split where he was Austin's Texas Sidekick. He was basically doing a Hansen cosplay. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cwoy2j said:

You must not have seen any pre-New Blackjacks Bradshaw or that brief period right after the brand split where he was Austin's Texas Sidekick. He was basically doing a Hansen cosplay. 

I haven't seen a lot of pre-JBL that wasn't APA - not for a long time, anyway.

Probably when I was seeing that early stuff, I didn't know Stan Hansen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

Just when I forget that I'm OLD, I come across @Kronos, who never saw Justin "Hawk" Bradshaw

bradshaw3.jpg

 

FUCK has it really been 20+ years? :(  

 

Oh, I am not young. I graduated high school in 1992. :huh: I grew up in Dallas in the 80's, fed by the Von Erichs and the Rock n Wrestling cartoon.

But I spent the MNWs and the early 00's being too good for that trashy rasslin. I didn't properly become an adult fan until 2006. I remember the very day and match. 

One of these days, I will go back and watch RAW and Nitro all the way through from Sept 1995 to Dec 1998, at least. And hardcore TV, too. But until then, I have satisfied myself with big matches, comps, clips, documentaries, full PPVs now and then, etc.  And Hawk Bradshaw just don't figure into it much. :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go back and forth on the extra titles. On one hand it is excessive given the talent pool. On the other hand the titles give focus to acts who would otherwise be afterthoughts. Lets say there is no smackdown women's title. My assumption is the overall women's title picture would look a lot like the raw women's title picture. Alexa would've never gotten a break. Naomi would not be in the title picture. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kronos said:

Oh, I am not young. I graduated high school in 1992. :huh: I grew up in Dallas in the 80's, fed by the Von Erichs and the Rock n Wrestling cartoon.

But I spent the MNWs and the early 00's being too good for that trashy rasslin. I didn't properly become an adult fan until 2006. I remember the very day and match. 

One of these days, I will go back and watch RAW and Nitro all the way through from Sept 1995 to Dec 1998, at least. And hardcore TV, too. But until then, I have satisfied myself with big matches, comps, clips, documentaries, full PPVs now and then, etc.  And Hawk Bradshaw just don't figure into it much. :)

Oh man, we're the same age.  Anyway, that era of WWE is so skippable I get depressed just thinking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, zev said:

What if the Shake Up isn't a full draft, but just 2 big guys from developmental being billed as The New Earthquake and The New Typhoon?

 

 

Heavy Machinery repackaged as the New Natural Disasters?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was watching the 'For All Mankind' DVD I picked up last night from a thrift store for $3 and two thoughts hit me.

1.  How long would Foley have lasted if he'd been billed as "Mason The Mutilator" (Imagine Vince pronouncing it "MEW-TEE-LAT-OR")?  I think the Mankind name was nothing special, it was made by Foley's promos, interviews and wrestling.   But all the of that wouldn't have been enough if he'd been introduced to fans as 'Mason the Mutilator' along with his crappy early costume.

2. Joey Styles REALLY isn't a big fan of women's wrestling, is he?  Foley spends part of the Doulgas-Mankind match talking about how wrestlers shouldn't do moves they can't do well, to focus on what they can do and do it well, and Styles says something along the lines of "Many of our current wrestlers, especially the divas, would do well to heed this advice and not do things they can't pull off: like dropkicks!" and it's just SO condescending-sounding, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Marty Sugar said:

Simple focus on Contender rankings could've replaced all the extra belts. The WWE loves to crib from UFC and while I don't watch UFC a lot I always see mentions of "fourth-ranked guy fights sixth-ranked guy" with commentary stressing that a win here moves the guy up the ranks. Surely that could be discussed in between hashtag plugs?

You should run a wrestling fed... ;-) Doesn't anyone else remember JCP showing the top ten every week for the Heavyweight Title? How about PWI running their top tens every issue? They didn't do nearly as much with the concept as they could have, but they did use it and it leant veracity to things to have the #7 guy facing the #3 guy and so on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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