Vince's ECW or Heyman's ECW?

flahavaj

This came up in another thread and I thought it would make for a good thread. Which did you prefer, the ECW thats on TV or the old ECW run by Paul Heyman?

Mr.Nice Guy

Heyman ftw.

The current ECW to me is just a glorified version of Velocity.

Rjd2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Heyman ftw.

The current ECW to me is just a glorified version of Velocity.

Nothing wrong with that, Velocity could be awesome some times.

Fozzy

Both have their good and bad points

The original ECW was something different and new. It had that underground cult-like following, with a much more adult-themed product than what the big two companies were putting out at the time

There were some great wrestlers there, but they were in the minority. But Heyman's booking always focused on hiding guys' weaknesses and accentuating their strengths, so guys who wouldn't get over in other promotions often became the stars

There was a good bit of rubbish on their shows too though, like the usual 15 minute opening segment with about half the roster making an appearance. They'd push everything at once and it was kind of hard for anything to make a proper impact. They had their fair share of crap matches too, with weapons galore

The new ECW is great for what it is, a one hour show based mainly on wrestling that gives less experienced guys some tv time. I think that it took a while before it found its place but I think that it's an acceptable show now. Nothing that's going to set the world on fire, but that's clearly not the aim

Of course, the name is what many people get hung up on. It has absolutely nothing to do with the original ECW now, but it still has that name because of all the campaigning that RVD and Heyman did to Vince to bring it back

In the end, I think I'd have to choose the original ECW. I'm not a massive fan, but I think that their high points were higher than what WWE has achieved with their show so far

EDIT: Velocity was an awesome show! I'd pick that ahead of either ECW in a heartbeat

Bounty Hunter

Fozzy wrote: »

The new ECW is great for what it is...Of course, the name is what many people get hung up on....In the end, I think I'd have to choose the original ECW

This I would agree with, ECW as it is now is quality as a show that gives newer wrestlers a chance and focuses on showcasing wrestling. It was a great idea to turn ECW into a show to develop talent on imo although it does mean that despite people maybe being hugely entertained by it, whilst being interested in how these new stars are doing, it can be seen as well not as important as the other brands. It is considerd as just a stepping stone for stars and some dont bother watching ECW because if the wrestlers are good enough they will see them when they get moved to the other brands anyway.

The Old ECW while not perhaps always as good as the new ones in terms of actual wrestling was different to anything else that was around and that drew you in, it was also very much adult orientated which is something i miss in wrestling (although its understandable thats a thing of the past).

The two really have very very little in commen apart from the name tbh.

I picked the old ECW although im not 100% sure why, maybe it was that it just reminds me of the attitude era and the time when my interest in PW peaked or that it seemed more important (not neccesarily better) than the new ECW, but thats what i did

flahavaj

I actually voted for the new ECW. With the odd exception like Big Show's horrible run as champion, its a show that has consistently entertained me. I like the focus on wrestling that the show has always had and the fact that theres always at least one long match, where wrestlers get the chance to tell a story in the ring. The constant influx of new talent mens the show stays fresh and interesting, in contrats to the utterly stale RAW. Over the past couple of years ECW has been IMO the best wrestling show on TV, (though Smackdown lately has been rivalling it). Some of my favourite wrestlers of the last while made their name on the show like the Miz and Morrison tag team, the Hart Dynasty and Evan Bourne.

When I first saw it, I thought the old ECW was the greatest thing I'd ever seen. Between the high spots, the raucous crowds, the booking to everyone's strengths, the lack of censorship and the use of really talented imports like Rey, Psicosis, Eddy, the Michinoku Pro guys, Hayabusa etc, it was a refreshing alternative to WWF and WCW. However I recently looked at a few of the shows again and I have to say, sadly,the product as a whole has aged horribly. Yes the imports were awesome, but really that was only a short period around 1995/6 when guys like Rey and Psicosis made there mark and the most talented guys like Benoit and Eddy were soon snapped up by the bigger companies. A lot of the matches were repetitive brawls that are quite boring to watch now. Even matches at the time like RVD/Lynn that I thought were incredible on first viewing really don't stand up at all. What saved the whole thing from being an absolute mess was Heyman and he was undoubtedly the star of the show in the way he used people to their strengths.

Even his great booking doesn't stop me voting for the modern ECW however and if I had a straight choice to watch one or the other right now, I think I'd rather watch the new ECW.

chopperbyrne

The new for me without a doubt.

I know that any week I can tune in and see a quality one hour pro wrestling show.

The vast majority of the old ECW was terrible. Only rose tinted glasses could see otherwise.

callaway92

new ECW

Machismo Fan

Any brand that has helped establish Kofi, Punk, Hart Dynasty, Swagger, Morrison and Miz and hopefully Sheamus is good in my books. If WWE didn't currently have the ECW brand it would be in a much worse state in terms of future talent.

DM_7

I really enjoy the new ECW. It's focus is on new talent and wrestling. It also, like the old ecw, takes guys who may be lost otherwise and makes something out if them.

Look at Helms at the minute, there was a time wwe would have cut him lose but instead gave him a chance to work on ecw as an interviewer and now he is ready to go in the ring again. Regal has suddenly found himself on the card of summerslam when he was going nowhere on raw.

It gives new guys a chance to wrestle for wwe to decide if a guy has what it takes and helps the talent learn whay they need to improve on. Recent main event with Christian showed Zack Ryder he needs to work hard so he doesn't gas but he and wwe know he can put on a good match.

Bounty Hunter

chopperbyrne wrote: »

The vast majority of the old ECW was terrible. Only rose tinted glasses could see otherwise.

I voted for the Old ECW but, I think you might be right in retrospect

Cactus Col

I voted for WWE's ECW.

I have tried to like the original ECW, but I can't. From what I have seen of it, it basically pandered to it's audience (which must've been made up of teenage boys). They didn't know how far too far was until they had crossed the line; taunting fans into jumping from balconies, lesbian kisses, crucifixtion, and, of course, Mass Transit. When the talented wrestlers weren't available the matches would have very little psychology, just a series of moves and spots one after the other, no flow. I'll hit you with a chair for a while, then you hit me with a cane for a while, then you hit me again all in the hope of getting the crowd to scream "holy sh-t".
They had to try top themselves by making things more violent, more hardcore, more extreme. So much so that television networks and ppv companies mostly stayed away.

WWE's ECW is an entirely different entity. It is much more polished, gives its audiences well rounded shows. Wrestlers seem to be encouraged to actually wrestle.

The Mike Levy incident in IWA last year is the true legacy of the original ECW.

The Cannibal

The old ECW by a long stretch.

ECW was about more than just match quality, although it did deliver the occasional good match.

It was about the crowd and the atmosphere which is something the casual, family, big arena audience can't replicate.

It was about starting a movement that was ripped off by WWE and to lesser extent WCW.

It was about shock and surprise. You'd never know what was going to happen or who was going to show up out of the blue.

It was about pushing the envelope even further than the WWE came even close to doing during the height of Attitude.

It was about unique live experiences that wouldn't happen anywhere else. Sandman entrance, stirophome heads etc.

Some of the greatest wrestling moments happened in the old ECW. I doubt that I'll be talking about any particular defining moment in the new ECW in ten years time other than maybe, so and so started there and squashed a couple of guys before moving to the A brand.

There was nothing like ECW and there never will be. To say that a show featuring a couple of squash matches and a decent main event, along with the likes of the horrid Abraham Washington show even compares to something that helped define the mid to late 90's I think is a ridiculous notion.

Sirsok

Cactus Col wrote: »

I voted for WWE's ECW.

I have tried to like the original ECW, but I can't. From what I have seen of it, it basically pandered to it's audience (which must've been made up of teenage boys). They didn't know how far too far was until they had crossed the line; taunting fans into jumping from balconies, lesbian kisses, crucifixtion, and, of course, Mass Transit. When the talented wrestlers weren't available the matches would have very little psychology, just a series of moves and spots one after the other, no flow. I'll hit you with a chair for a while, then you hit me with a cane for a while, then you hit me again all in the hope of getting the crowd to scream "holy sh-t".
They had to try top themselves by making things more violent, more hardcore, more extreme. So much so that television networks and ppv companies mostly stayed away.

WWE's ECW is an entirely different entity. It is much more polished, gives its audiences well rounded shows. Wrestlers seem to be encouraged to actually wrestle.

The Mike Levy incident in IWA last year is the true legacy of the original ECW.

i voted for the original version,i only have tapes and dvds,so i may just be seeing the highlights of ecw but i would rather watch van dam v lynn over the abraheim washington show!

comparing the mike levy incident to the legecy of ecw is a bit harsh

original ecw did bring some excellent action more so then the new ecw.si i go with the original

Lone Kimono

Cactus Col wrote: »

I voted for WWE's ECW.

I have tried to like the original ECW, but I can't. From what I have seen of it, it basically pandered to it's audience (which must've been made up of teenage boys). They didn't know how far too far was until they had crossed the line; taunting fans into jumping from balconies, lesbian kisses, crucifixtion, and, of course, Mass Transit. When the talented wrestlers weren't available the matches would have very little psychology, just a series of moves and spots one after the other, no flow. I'll hit you with a chair for a while, then you hit me with a cane for a while, then you hit me again all in the hope of getting the crowd to scream "holy sh-t".
They had to try top themselves by making things more violent, more hardcore, more extreme. So much so that television networks and ppv companies mostly stayed away.

WWE's ECW is an entirely different entity. It is much more polished, gives its audiences well rounded shows. Wrestlers seem to be encouraged to actually wrestle.

The Mike Levy incident in IWA last year is the true legacy of the original ECW.

Thats how I feel as well. Yes there was some good matches in the old ECW but for the most part I didnt like the style or the extreme rules at all.

The new ECW has improved so much since it started up a few years ago, some great wrestlers and some great matches. Its the best thing about WWE at the moment.

gimmick

I went for the original ECW as well. I only got into old ECW in about 2004/5 when I was tiring of what WWE had to offer and it somehow re invigorated my appetite for Wrestling.

ECW was innovative, it basically shaped what would become the attitude era. It gave the likes of Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko, Myseterio etc a go on US tv when the others would not touch them. It helped establish the likes of The Dudleys, RVD and even Austin to a small degree.

The crowds were raucous, the talent pandered to this. Though I reckon half of them were on crystal meth at times.

Of course, to counter balance all that ECW emploed New Jack.

Gerard.C

gimmick wrote: »

I went for the original ECW as well. I only got into old ECW in about 2004/5 when I was tiring of what WWE had to offer and it somehow re invigorated my appetite for Wrestling.

ECW was innovative, it basically shaped what would become the attitude era. It gave the likes of Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko, Myseterio etc a go on US tv when the others would not touch them. It helped establish the likes of The Dudleys, RVD and even Austin to a small degree.

The crowds were raucous, the talent pandered to this. Though I reckon half of them were on crystal meth at times.

Of course, to counter balance all that ECW emploed New Jack.

Vibes & Scribes 3 for €10 on ECW videos? Thats what got me into it anyway!

Tis a tough choice, I don't think the old ECW is fun to watch anymore. For me, it's a case of yeah, you were fair cool 10 years ago when you were getting belted with chairs every night, now you're dead and that's not really that cool. In that respect I think I'll vote the new ECW

Tricity Bendix

I voted for the new ECW.

I just hated the vast majority of matches in the old ECW.

Funny how 'ECW rules' matches mean more in the bastardised version than in the original.

lankysexybeast

hard choice the section in jerico's book "phili" threw me ahead for old ecw.

parker kent

Not even a moments hesitation in saying the old ECW. For me it is like comparing a microwave dinner with 5 star cooking (or a 5 star frog splash!). The real ECW was the most innovative company in wrestling. Admittedly they had budget problems and there could be some slapdash booking, but the quality of the matches cannot be doubted. Taz and Sabu was one of the best booked feuds I've seen. RVD and Jerry Lynn had probably the best series of matches with each other I've seen outside of HBK and the Undertaker's 4 big matches. I could actually go on and on about how much I think of ECW. It is often dismissed as just garbage wrestling, but RVD, Jerry Lynn, Super Crazy, Taijiri, Lance Storm, Chris Candido etc are amongst the best in ring workers in North American wrestling.

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

Not even a moments hesitation in saying the old ECW. For me it is like comparing a microwave dinner with 5 star cooking (or a 5 star frog splash!). The real ECW was the most innovative company in wrestling. Admittedly they had budget problems and there could be some slapdash booking, but the quality of the matches cannot be doubted. Taz and Sabu was one of the best booked feuds I've seen. RVD and Jerry Lynn had probably the best series of matches with each other I've seen outside of HBK and the Undertaker's 4 big matches. I could actually go on and on about how much I think of ECW. It is often dismissed as just garbage wrestling, but RVD, Jerry Lynn, Super Crazy, Taijiri, Lance Storm, Chris Candido etc are amongst the best in ring workers in North American wrestling.

Watch those RVD/Lynn matches again in 2009. Don't hold up at all.

Sirsok

flahavaj wrote: »

Watch those RVD/Lynn matches again in 2009. Don't hold up at all.

they certainly outclass anything the new ecw has done.well except the obvious exception of lashley and test at the rumble 07!:D

flahavaj

Sirsok wrote: »

they certainly outclass anything the new ecw has done.well except the obvious exception of lashley and test at the rumble 07!:D

I couldn't disagree more. When was the last time you watched those matches? Because they've aged terribly. What with the over choreographed familiarity spots, the cliched indy stand-offs, the lame "chain wrestling" and the fact that the matches were nothing more than a series of highspots thrown together, they really weren't that good at all IMHO.

The Cannibal

Wrestling has to be judged by time period I think.

A lot of things can't directly be compared really. The 90's was very different to the 80's and the modern day product is very different to the 90's.

In the 90's, ECW was at the very forefront of innovation. Modern ECW wouldn't have even been innovative in the 80's.

RVD/Lynn might look like crap now that wrestling has moved on again, but at the time there was very little out there like it and it made it unique in it's time period. Nowadays you see the same match on pretty much an indy show and it's not really anything special, even looked down upon. But in the 90's it served.

If the old ECW had stayed in business, they would have evolved again. They were already making the transition away from the more garbage stuff and trying to round out a roster of more wrestlers before they closed. If they had outlasted WCW, could you have imagined what Heyman could have done with that sudden influx of talent? I'm guessing he would have done a much better job with ex-WCW guys than Vince did.

If the old ECW stayed profitable and continued into 2009, it would have changed with the times. I think if it were able to travel that timeline, then it's alternate universe product of 09 would have been far better than WWE's ECW.

flahavaj

The Cannibal wrote: »

Wrestling has to be judged by time period I think.

A lot of things can't directly be compared really. The 90's was very different to the 80's and the modern day product is very different to the 90's.

In the 90's, ECW was at the very forefront of innovation. Modern ECW wouldn't have even been innovative in the 80's.

Everything you say up until the bolded sentence is perfectly reasonable. But to say that guys like Bourne, Miz, Morrison, the Hart Dynasty and all the other innovative wrestlers who have wrestled for WWE's ECW wouldn't stand out in the 80's, gbiven their wrestling style alone, is insane. Saying that actually contradicts your earlier points.

RVD/Lynn might look like crap now that wrestling has moved on again, but at the time there was very little out there like it and it made it unique in it's time period. Nowadays you see the same match on pretty much an indy show and it's not really anything special, even looked down upon. But in the 90's it served.

The really good matches from any time period will stand up when viewed in 2009. Stuff like early 90's All Japan, Mid 90's New Japan junior matches, 80's stuff like Steamboat/Savage and Dynamite/Tiger Mask look as fresh today as it did in its heyday. Lynn/RVD may have seemed like the greatest thing in the world in 1999, but it has aged horribly, because the reality is it was wrestling of little or no substance.

If the old ECW had stayed in business, they would have evolved again. They were already making the transition away from the more garbage stuff and trying to round out a roster of more wrestlers before they closed. If they had outlasted WCW, could you have imagined what Heyman could have done with that sudden influx of talent? I'm guessing he would have done a much better job with ex-WCW guys than Vince did.

If the old ECW stayed profitable and continued into 2009, it would have changed with the times. I think if it were able to travel that timeline, then it's alternate universe product of 09 would have been far better than WWE's ECW.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle! They were a small time promotion with a cult-like following whos place in wrestling history is constantly overstated. As Machismo Fan said yesterday, TNA are already a bigger deal in terms of exposure and worldwide viewership. They didn't outlast WCW, using a hypothetical argumenet where they did is a bit silly really. Lets judge them on the merits of what they produced instead of speculating on what they may have produced if Heyman had even the first clue how to run a business. Speculating as to what Heyman would have done with ex WCW guys especially really is irrelevant, he had tonnes of talent at his disposal in 2001 and they still went belly up!

The Cannibal

It's about as relevant as comparing a 2009 WWE C show to a mid to late 90's indy promotion.

My point was that if Heyman's ECW were still in business in 2009 it would be a better product than what WWE currently serves up because it would have evolved into modern times and been more rounded.

My point about the modern product not being innovative in the 80's wasn't about the wrestling. I acknowledge they are good wrestlers, but good wrestlers aren't innovative in of themselves. You'll have the occassional guy who'll pioneer a completely new style but those are increasingly rare these days. Every company will have its stand out guys in the ring. What I was saying was that it is very ABC booking. You have a couple of squash matches, some horrid segments like Abe Washington and a decent main event. It's booking by the numbers, and WWE was doing this style of show back in the 80's.

As for TNA being bigger. It was a different landscape. TNA had no competiton and pretty much went straight into the #2 spot. ECW had to contest the marketplace during the height of the Monday Night Wars and they got the scraps off of WWE and WCW tables. Then what scraps they turned into gems, got repoached to fuel the ratings wars.

There would be no TNA if ECW didn't fold. The complete elimination of any competition for an alternative whatsoever opened up the possibility of TNA.

They had PPV, they had a computer game franchise, they had a spot on TNA's current home and they were shown on Bravo over here and they even went out of business to full houses before their demise. This took them less than a decade. Round about 8 years. They did this all without a backer like Panda Energy.

TNA only really draw slightly better numbers than ECW, and they are promoted on the network unlike ECW who were mistreated and neglected. PPV wise a lot of ECW efforts actually outsold TNA. TNA have been pretty much following ECW's rise just at an accelerated rate because they benefit from less competiton, a network that supports them and a wider talent pool of star names to bring in and elevate the product. They are on ECW's station, they are shown on Bravo, the video game was a big deal. It is just pretty much what ECW could have been if they were more finacially responsible. They probably would have been bigger even because their brand would have been longer established and they would have had the stars and used them better probably.

DM_7

Here is an old ecw story from Lance Storm. They really were poor/skint no wonder the vince ecw looks more polished.

My next great ECW story takes place in another PPV Main Event. This time it was The November to Remember PPV from 1999. The show was from Buffalo, NY and the main event match was The Impact Players and Rhino against Tommy Dreamer, Raven, and The Sandman. We were really low budget back then and unlike WCW and WWE our refs didn’t have earpieces connecting them to someone in the back. Because of this we never got time cues in ECW during our matches. This was never a problem for TV because the show was post produced so there was never a concern for time, but on PPV we were live and ending the show on time really mattered.

Paul Heyman knew the product really well and knew how much time everyone needed so generally time cues weren’t that important. Most shows were paced out well enough and the main event would go to the ring with approximately 45 minutes of PPV time left, so the guys could go anywhere between 15 and 45 minutes and the show would end up just fine. Unless you are completely incompetent that’s a pretty easy window to hit. On this particular night however the show went quite long and I think we had less than 30 minutes left for our match before the broadcast would go off the air.

We had to keep this match really tight but 6-Man matches are a lot harder to pin down for time, so I was real worried we might go long. If the match wasn’t hard enough to pin down already, we also had Sandman’s ring entrance to deal with, which often went ridiculously long. As the match got underway I started getting really worried about time, and was scared to death we might go long. With no way to get a time cue from the back I actually had to hop off the ring apron and I grabbed a kid at ringside by the wrist and checked his watch, to see what time it was. I knew the PPV broadcast went off at 10:50 PM so I paced the matched based on the time I got from the kids watch. I don’t know if that kid had any idea what I was doing or realizes how big of a role he played in the show but he was a lifesaver. Two or three times during that match I jumped down to check his watch and then hopped back into the match to give time cues.

I loved ECW but what a Mickey Mouse way to run a PPV event. I laugh just thinking about it now; we were doing a live event on PPV and had no means by which to pace the event to end on time and I ended up getting time cues from a fan’s watch at ringside. Thank God the kids watch wasn’t running slow or we would have been screwed.

parker kent

The Cannibal wrote: »

Wrestling has to be judged by time period I think.

A lot of things can't directly be compared really. The 90's was very different to the 80's and the modern day product is very different to the 90's.

In the 90's, ECW was at the very forefront of innovation. Modern ECW wouldn't have even been innovative in the 80's.

RVD/Lynn might look like crap now that wrestling has moved on again, but at the time there was very little out there like it and it made it unique in it's time period. Nowadays you see the same match on pretty much an indy show and it's not really anything special, even looked down upon. But in the 90's it served.

If the old ECW had stayed in business, they would have evolved again. They were already making the transition away from the more garbage stuff and trying to round out a roster of more wrestlers before they closed. If they had outlasted WCW, could you have imagined what Heyman could have done with that sudden influx of talent? I'm guessing he would have done a much better job with ex-WCW guys than Vince did.

If the old ECW stayed profitable and continued into 2009, it would have changed with the times. I think if it were able to travel that timeline, then it's alternate universe product of 09 would have been far better than WWE's ECW.

I agree with all said here. Innovation was the key to ECW. After growing up watching WWF and WCW, seeing ECW was like moving into another dimension. It was so fresh, so authentic. It was as real as something scripted can be. Just watch Brian Pillman's appearances in ECW in late 95/early 96 and compare it to the cliched backstage segements WWF or WCW were doing. That was the prototype of the realistic, Attitude era stuff that took WWF back to the top. ECW went through a few eras, from the balls out hardcore style of Raven/Dreamer/Sandman to the pure wrestling by Lynn/Storm etc at the end, it was capable of progression and diversion. Even RVD, the top star in the company was shown to have weaknesses and lower down wrestlers like Little Guido were allowed have competitive matches with him. You couldn't say the same with Vince's ECW. Squash matches all the way a lot of the time.

In the imaginary universe The Cannibal mentions, imagine a world where Heyman received some major injection of cash around the time Mike Awesome had the title. If they had achieved this financial security, Heyman could have indulged in the kind of long term planning that would have moved ECW into it's next generation. RVD/Awesome would have been one of the great feuds if it had happened. Plus as mentioned above, if Heyman had got the likes of Billy Kidman from WCW, a whole host of fresh characters could have been created. At the end of ECW, Heyman was more concerned with ensuring a show actually went out at all, than in coming up with great stories. If he had no financial worries, he would have been free to create and innovate.

Heyman proved with his handling of Mick Foley, Steve Austin, Brian Pillman that he could create characters and attitudes that translate into big bucks. Foley and Austin both note the role ECW played in cultivating the characters that made them rich.

Plus in answer to flahavaj, I think those matches hold up pretty well. In their time, they were like nothing I had seen before so they remain special to me. But it is much the same of wrestling in any era. Only a few matches truly stand the test of time. If you watch Raw from before the Attitude era it certainly does not stand up either.

Edit: Plus imagine AJ Styles, Fallen Angel etc in a modern Paul Heyman run ECW going up against RVD and co!

Sirsok

flahavaj wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. When was the last time you watched those matches? Because they've aged terribly. What with the over choreographed familiarity spots, the cliched indy stand-offs, the lame "chain wrestling" and the fact that the matches were nothing more than a series of highspots thrown together, they really weren't that good at all IMHO.

i believe theres nothing wrong with highspots in matches,unless they really needless (new jack and vic grimes!).i think there fairly entertaining matches but i like nearly like every sort of wrestling.from cage of death matches to the super j cup and back i love it all (not a big world of sport fan).i enjoy what keeps me entertained and the orginal ecw has done that more so then the new ecw!

flahavaj

Sirsok wrote: »

i believe theres nothing wrong with highspots in matches,unless they really needless (new jack and vic grimes!).i think there fairly entertaining matches but i like nearly like every sort of wrestling.from cage of death matches to the super j cup and back i love it all (not a big world of sport fan).i enjoy what keeps me entertained and the orginal ecw has done that more so then the new ecw!

I love a good spotfest myself, but the most enjoyable ones are ones that are well executed and where they build to the spots and make them mean something. ECW for the most part was the opposite of this, they killed the importance of their highspots by having them in equal measure in every match from the opener to the Main Event.

Good well thought out posts from The Cannibal and Parker Kent btw, theres not a huge point in me replying as I'd just be repeating myself and going around in circles, but its nice to see well thought out detailed arguments on here: whether I agree or disagree, long may it continue lads.

Sirsok

flahavaj wrote: »

I love a good spotfest myself, but the most enjoyable ones are ones that are well executed and where they build to the spots and make them mean something. ECW for the most part was the opposite of this, they killed the importance of their highspots by having them in equal measure in every match from the opener to the Main Event.

fair point!still would watch a mike awesome match over a kozlov match anyday

pingu_girl

Both better than current Raw.

parker kent

pingu_girl wrote: »

Both better than current Raw.

Here here!