Why dont they let them wrestle more?

Bounty Hunter

I know that generally in wrestling you can be great as just a wrestler but without talent outside the ring its believed you cant get over but is that really the case anymore?

Maybe within the company it is but with the fans and to use the termonology even the Marks who arent part of the IWC I dont know. If anything I feel the fans have become desensitised to the out of the ring stuff as it often all just blends into one. I honestly think a certain few individuals on the rosters would be able to get over simply by giving them longer matches.

the obvious example is of course Bryan Danielson. In a time when promos seem increasingly forgettable why not give a guy who some think isnt good at them (personally i disagree) a few more minutes in the ring instead of a backstage segment. I would think he would be far more likely to get over during the extra few minutes in the ring than in that backstage segment.

Others though fit the bill too. if creative cant think of anything for Kofi Kingston just book him in a long match with someone else who wants to impress or someone big. Him vs Morrison for example could have a lot of potential if given enough time. Much like it did/could have done for Kofi i'd imagine putting Daniel Bryan in a big (one thats given time/spots etc) match (hopefully a feud results of a great match) with someone like Randy Orton would work wonders for him and Orton as Danielson will make him look great too.

I honestly think one 20m match with someone like him would put a lot of the WWEs talent in ring talent over more than an hour of what creative usually has them do on the programming.

Obviously this wouldent be true for a lot of competitors but the WWE's micro match style can often be one of the biggest things in stopping talent get over. Wrestling obviously doesent have to be all about the actual in ring duel but when you have a Danielson, a Regal, a Punk, etc you should give them time cos thats all you need to do.

krudler

Becuase having guys wrestle would mean its actually wrestling, having them cookie cutter "action" moves means it isnt

starviewadams

Because quite frankly,the WWE can't have old time carny wrestling taking up valuable time on their weekly sports entertainment broadcast extravaganzas.

Machismo Fan

It's long been forgotten that the most effective way to get a good wrestler over is by just letting them wrestle. People place way too much emphasis on promos and angles, if somebody goes out and has exciting matches every week they'll get over a lot quicker than cutting promos would.

G-Money

Sure they won't even let them say the word "wrestler" now or "belt". It's a joke. I read that Vince now wants it to be called WWE, not World Wrestling Entertainment.

parker kent

Big beefcakes tend not to be able to wrestle (due to being muscle bound goons). Vince likes big beefcakes and regularly has guys pushed to the main even purely for their look. If the number 1 guy (Hogan and his ilk throughout the years) cannot wrestle very well, you can't have everybody else showing him up. Plus as the others have said, Vince wants entertainment and not the dirty "W" word.

Steve Austin was the notable exception to the big beefcake being the number 1 guy in the WWF/WWE.

This post is a generalisation, but I think it is a pretty big reason.

drayme

WWE has never been a Wrestling promotion.

End of topic.

drayme

Machismo Fan wrote: »

It's long been forgotten that the most effective way to get a good wrestler over is by just letting them wrestle. People place way too much emphasis on promos and angles, if somebody goes out and has exciting matches every week they'll get over a lot quicker than cutting promos would.

Sorry but looking at the history of the sport that simply isnt true in North America.

Kells...

So your saying from the 1980s to 2000 WWF was not a wrestling promotion?

Machismo Fan

TroutFisher wrote: »

So your saying from the 1980s to 2000 WWF was not a wrestling promotion?

Probably not for the headline talent but most definitely for everything below that (mainly because there's a lot more great wrestlers than great talkers).

starviewadams

If they let Danielson have the sort of match that he just had with Cody Rhodes on SD! tonight,every week,there is no way he wouldn't get over.

drayme

TroutFisher wrote: »

So your saying from the 1980s to 2000 WWF was not a wrestling promotion?

It was Sports Entertainment.

drayme

starviewadams wrote: »

If they let Danielson have the sort of match that he just had with Cody Rhodes on SD! tonight,every week,there is no way he wouldn't get over.

Yeah but there is a cap to how over the Benoit/Danielsons get over.

rossie1977

TroutFisher wrote: »

So your saying from the 1980s to 2000 WWF was not a wrestling promotion?

dray is correct vince jrs fed has never been a wrestling promotion, vinces major focus has been on characters first, storylines second and wrestling a distant third, its always been this way (save for a short spell between mid late 2002-04)

the 80s was dominated by short squash matches on tv and short squash matches on ppv, the early 90s with zany gimmicks. the late 90s with over the top violence, swearing, nudity, the biggest feud in the attitude era involved a non-wrestler vince himself

this video has done the rounds alot, its from december 1997, notice the words vince uses.....entertainment

"we borrow from such niches as soap-operas like days of our lives, music videos on mtv, daytime talk shows such as jerry springer, cartoons like king of the hill and sitcoms like seinfeld"

vince never uses the word "wrestling" even once in this promo, outside the obvious world wrestling federation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HznErMk97B4

drayme

Yep it has been a marketing and licensing company for as long as Vince has ran it.

davrho

Money. Thats the answer. Profit is all that matters. When you see huge dividends being paid to shareholders every quarter then our entertainment does not matter.

davrho

drayme wrote: »

WWE has never been a Wrestling promotion.

End of topic.

I agree. It is a great tv show which should be enjoyed but not taken too seriously. It is a laugh.

parker kent

People are not questioning the fact that Vince sees the show as entertainment or that storylines are more important to him. My reading of the OP is that when actual wrestling does happen, why don't they let them showcase more of what they can do.

Anybody like CM Punk, Bryan Danielson etc that appears from ROH, indies etc tones down what they do in the ring by about 80%. It still allows for enjoyable matches, but it could be better and more varied. 95% of the current roster wrestle in the same WWE style that is synonymous with WWE main eventers like Hulk Hogan, John Cena, Ultimate Warrior etc. Years ago, they at least let the IC title have great wrestlers having great matches with Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Randy Savage, Ricky Steamboat etc. Whereas now there are far less varied styles. Danielson and Sin Cara have different styles, most others (even Rey) wrestle in much the same style and pace.

So whilst we all agree that entertainment, stories, character etc are higher on Vince's priority list, the question should still be asked: Why don't they let them have better wrestling matches than they currently allow? My first post in this thread partly sums up my thoughts on that.

flahavaj

Wrestling doesn't draw jack sh*t in America. Look at ROH.

jimmy jailbreak

I think you're all being incredibly short sighted. Please take a look back at wrestling TV from the 80's and early 90's. Notice anything? Pretty much every match on the card was a star VS a jobber. This wasn't just the case with the WWF, the NWA and the AWA both used the same formula. Why? To keep matches fresh. You never gave away big matches on TV, this kept live attendances and PPV buyrates high because the chances were you had never seen the matches on the card before.

Nowadays filling up TV time with jobber matches simply isn't going to cut it. This is mostly due to the Monday night wars when WCW and WWF tried to out do each other every week in a battle for ratings. Because of this the fans have grown accustomed to seeing the stars every week. This is why they can't have 20 minute matches each week. Because if we're going to see the stars wrestle PPV quality matches on television then what's the point of buying the PPV? This is why TV matches are kept to a short amount of time, so the PPVs can bring you matches of length.

drayme

On the creative end of things imagine if you were a writer who wanted to keep yourself in a job do you write:

a) Daniel Bryan vs Daniel Bryan (30 mins)

or

b) John Cena opens the show with a 5 minute comedy monologue, gets serious for 3 minutes, gets interrupted by heel A then heel B then heel C. They all argue. Raw GM chimes in booking them all in a TAG TEAM match tonight on Raw.

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

Wrestling doesn't draw jack sh*t in America. Look at ROH.

But regardless of that, the question is still valid. You can have all the angles and soap opera stuff that Vince loves. But it doesn't change that they still have wrestling matches. So why not let the matches they have be a bit better?

You can't even think about comparing ROH with the WWE in terms of drawing either. It's like comparing my articles in the UCD newspaper with articles in the Washington Post. You'd need to compare eras within WWE/WWF or WCW to see what difference better in-ring wrestling makes. I think for about 18 months WCW had the right balance in 1996 and 1997. Main eventers like Hogan had their style, but it didn't mean that the cruiserweights or US title guys had to tone down their in-ring wrestling. The WWF had that balance at various different times throughout it's history as well.

But the last 5ish years has seen a homogenisation of in ring work. Very few stand out for their in-ring work any more. Any of the NXT guys (bar Danielson obviously) could be swapped for the majority of the others. I would also add that it is not as if the WWE have barnstorming stories or characters at the minute either. I think like Jaykhunter said in another thread, I'm a bit down on the WWE at the minute in general.

jimmy jailbreak wrote: »

Nowadays filling up TV time with jobber matches simply isn't going to cut it. This is mostly due to the Monday night wars when WCW and WWF tried to out do each other every week in a battle for ratings. Because of this the fans have grown accustomed to seeing the stars every week. This is why they can't have 20 minute matches each week. Because if we're going to see the stars wrestle PPV quality matches on television then what's the point of buying the PPV? This is why TV matches are kept to a short amount of time, so the PPVs can bring you matches of length.

I know I am referring to PPV matches in all my points. I imagine others are as well. I don't expect stonewall classics week in, week out. When I say CM Punk is holding back in his matches, I include his Wrestlemania matches. Imagine what Punk and Rey could have done were they given carte blanche at Wrestlemania.

CMpunked

I seen a recent TNA video thing and one thing Kurt Angle said stood out to me;
"As for all the storylines, feuds and stuff we produce, what we do ALWAYS ends up in the ring. Thats why *wrestling matters*"
Makes a whole lot of sense.

jimmy jailbreak

parker kent wrote: »

But regardless of that, the question is still valid. You can have all the angles and soap opera stuff that Vince loves. But it doesn't change that they still have wrestling matches. So why not let the matches they have be a bit better?

You can't even think about comparing ROH with the WWE in terms of drawing either. It's like comparing my articles in the UCD newspaper with articles in the Washington Post. You'd need to compare eras within WWE/WWF or WCW to see what difference better in-ring wrestling makes. I think for about 18 months WCW had the right balance in 1996 and 1997. Main eventers like Hogan had their style, but it didn't mean that the cruiserweights or US title guys had to tone down their in-ring wrestling. The WWF had that balance at various different times throughout it's history as well.

But the last 5ish years has seen a homogenisation of in ring work. Very few stand out for their in-ring work any more. Any of the NXT guys (bar Danielson obviously) could be swapped for the majority of the others. I would also add that it is not as if the WWE have barnstorming stories or characters at the minute either. I think like Jaykhunter said in another thread, I'm a bit down on the WWE at the minute in general.




I know I am referring to PPV matches in all my points. I imagine others are as well. I don't expect stonewall classics week in, week out. When I say CM Punk is holding back in his matches, I include his Wrestlemania matches. Imagine what Punk and Rey could have done were they given carte blanche at Wrestlemania.

Ok. What exactly is your complaint? Is it that matches on PPV aren't given enough time? (I can't see how that's true). Or is it that wrestlers in WWE don't go balls to the wall and do every single move in existence like they do in...I dunno...Dragon Gate?

Bounty Hunter

btw I do know the reasons historically why we now get not so much in ring action and the fact that tbh we never really did get huge amounts anyway but I thought it would be an interesting topic anyway. However the main differing points in my OP i'd say are these.

My OP wrote:

....

Maybe within the company it is but with the fans and to use the termonology even the Marks who arent part of the IWC I dont know. If anything I feel the fans have become desensitised to the out of the ring stuff as it often all just blends into one. I honestly think a certain few individuals on the rosters would be able to get over simply by giving them longer matches.
.....
I honestly think one 20m match with someone like him would put a lot of the WWEs talent in ring talent over more than an hour of what creative usually has them do on the programming.

Obviously this wouldent be true for a lot of competitors but the WWE's micro match style can often be one of the biggest things in stopping talent get over. Wrestling obviously doesent have to be all about the actual in ring duel but when you have a Danielson, a Regal, a Punk, etc you should give them time cos thats all you need to do.

Simply put both outside the ring and inside the ring as pointed out by Parker Kent below:

But the last 5ish years has seen a homogenisation of in ring work. Very few stand out for their in-ring work any more.

This imo has lead to a situation where people like the oft referenced Danielson can actually make more of an impression imo in the ring and is far far more likely to get over if just given a chance to have a match which is a bit longer than usual and therefore maybe doesnt have to fit the WWE style than any other way the creative team could come up.

Its all about who the WWE want to make theuir top stars of course and only those will be given a chance like im going to suggest but I do think that in this era where they are so desperate to make new stars getting someone like Danielson over should be easy. Give him a 20+ min Raw main event vs someone like Orton (I know they are both on SD now, its just an example) with no restraints he would get over. He wouldent have to win either but you know in a match like that he would make Orton look a million bucks too while he puts him over.

parker kent

jimmy jailbreak wrote: »

Ok. What exactly is your complaint? Is it that matches on PPV aren't given enough time? (I can't see how that's true). Or is it that wrestlers in WWE don't go balls to the wall and do every single move in existence like they do in...I dunno...Dragon Gate?

I clearly didn't say I want them going balls out and doing every move in existence. It should be clear I just want a greater diversification in matches and less of the generic FCW wrestling. Read my posts again and it should be pretty clear what I'm saying.