Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

BohsJohnny

briany wrote: »

I don't care how good the ring work is.

I like a good promo or vignette or skit just as much as the next person but if that was my only way to get invested in wrestling and as you say don't care about ring work I wouldn't watch cos at the end of the day that's the point of wrestling without the ring work there's much better forms of entertainment that could fulfil your needs.

briany

BohsJohnny wrote: »

I like a good promo or vignette or skit just as much as the next person but if that was my only way to get invested in wrestling and as you say don't care about ring work I wouldn't watch cos at the end of the day that's the point of wrestling without the ring work there's much better forms of entertainment that could fulfil your needs.

You quoted me out of context, though. I said if you can't make people care about the match, then the match doesn't mean a lot. In this case all that effort in the ring isn't for a whole lot but the admiration of a relatively small cadre of fans who are into the technique and craft of what's going on in the ring. I'm into technique and craft, too, but the kind I like is one that paints the overall picture, that makes me forget I'm watching a staged spectacle and is about the overall story, in and out of the ring. It's like Jim Cornette says, it's about making it so the fans want to see one guy get his ass beat. That's basically wrestling in a nutshell pretty much from it's earliest carny days. You need a good heel who the crowd hates and a good face who the crowd loves.

You're right, though. Without the ring work wrestling isn't much, but I could say the same of without promos. It's symbiotic. When you have those two doing the perfect meld, it's magic. Without the promo work, the characters, UFC is probably a more attractive option. To say there's better forms of entertainment out there is missing the point and putting wrestling down in a way because it's almost implying that wrestling shouldn't have to do one of the fundamental things of storytelling based entertainment, to make people care, to give them a reason why they should even be following the thing in the first place.

DM_7

WWE have killed the must see elements of their product due to way too much weekly television.

Overall i still enjoy it but skip large parts of what they do. The main event of RAW for example should be must see but if its a match its rarely ever worth watching and you can skip to the last few minutes to see what happens in the end.

The rest of the show is hurt by poor pacing/layout you may as well just skip the start of a match as its just to set up the commercial. Compare it to lucha underground who get everything in between breaks rather than breaking the momentum of a match. Obviously that is taped so easier but WWE cant even do it for Smackdown.

Then they have the obvious throwaway nothing segments that they use to fill time that i skip but overall they just add to the I don't need to watch feeling.

They should be doing more to make RAW and Smackdown very differant and stop it feeling like a long drawn out week of unimportant stuff.

i still like their PPV/specials. At this stage RAW and Smackdown than be watched quickly and just focus in on the bigger storylines that feed into the PPV. Watch WWE in condensed form, then the PPV and its actually good.

rovert

I know it was edited for TV. But was letdown by not being OFFENDED~! for the match between Angelico and Ivelisse on Lucha Underground this week:
https://twitter.com/DeathToAllMarks/status/576219344507703296

Vision of Disorder

rovert wrote: »

I know it was edited for TV. But was letdown by not being OFFENDED~! for the match between Angelico and Ivelisse on Lucha Underground this week:
https://twitter.com/DeathToAllMarks/status/576219344507703296

I watched the first 4 episodes of Lucha. Do they still have the cheesy, Spanish guitar-in-a-soap-opera music playing over promos and back stage bits and the likes?

Andersonisgod

Ageyev wrote: »

What device are you watching NJPW World on? WWE Network is available on pretty much everything but NJPW World is basically just a website. Content wise it is fabulous but on the technical side I find it to be lacking as I don't like to be watching stuff on a computer.

I use it mostly on my laptop and occasionally on my phone. I understand watching things on a computer screen can be a bit jarring, though I've found myself connecting my laptop to my tv and watching it that way.

Itssoeasy

Having watched two wcw ppvs where scaffold matches were held. Who in the hell thought these matches were good ?

rovert

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Having watched two wcw ppvs where scaffold matches were held. Who in the hell thought these matches were good ?

They started in Memphis. A promotion that was known for outlandish gimmick matches and characters. There's one really good one. Bill Dundee grew up in Australia and in Australia he used to work on building sites so scaffolds were nothing new to him. ALSO it is also 2 out of 3 falls.

gnfnrhead

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I don't get the argument to be fair. I don't get why people are complaining about the fact that most people watch WWE. It's biggest international competitor rarely has English commentary (and when it does it's normally only highlights of matches and not the full card, which is annoying). WWE is on Sky, most people here have watched wrestling from a young age and it has been WWE. Now, I do watch other promotions. I watch some ROH, CHIKARA, NJPW and if someone recommends a good match from a smaller indie promotion, I'll get on that. However, to criticise people for not watching anything than WWE is silly IMHO. It's 3 hours for Raw a week, 2 hours if you watch Smackdown!. That's 5 hours of wrestling a week, plus an extra 3 hours for a PPV once a month. That's a lot of time to be investing.

You have to remember there is a limit to the amount of free time people have. Not everyone can invest more than the 3 or 5 hours they do a week. And that's fine, we shouldn't be pushing those people away! We should be letting them join in the conversation, their opinion is just as important! Whether you like it or not, WWE is going to be the biggest thing wrestling wise in English speaking countries for years to come. NJPW and WWE don't have to battle each other as they are both catering to different markets and demographics. So, it makes sense that most people on boards watch (and talk about) WWE

I don't think anyone is saying people can't only watch WWE. The arguement (for me at least) is people who only watch WWE but then complain wrestling sucks and yet won't watch anything else. If something sucks, why are you still watching it? Why are you investing those 3 or 5 hours a week into such a poor product when you're just going to complain about it afterwards? I also grew up (started watching wrestling when I was less than a year old) on WWE but I'm not going to keep watching it due to that alone. At one stage I watched the stuff like Heat too. But that was then, now the show is dreadful and isn't worth my time. I'd rather invest my wrestling time into other promotions that are far better at this point in time. Modern WWE get an hour a week from me and that is NXT. The rest of my time goes elsewhere.

In my previous post I listed several easy to find alternatives, all of which operate on a near weekly basis just like WWE. NJPW being the only exception and even they aren't too far off.

Palo Alto

Lucha Underground has sated my need for ridiculous storylines pretty well.

DM_7

There is no possible way to keep people interested in a three hour RAW every Monday. It will never happen. Even if they tried they would fail. I am not giving them an excuse for not trying, they should be trying since they added the extra hour but i just don't think its something that can be done.

briany

Never thought I'd be saying these words 15 years ago, but RAW should follow Nitro's model if they're going to insist on sticking with three hours of TV . That's another thing - all this talk of 'oh it is really hard to write 3 hours of RAW a week' from HHH on Austin's podcast, no, it's not 3 hours of TV. It's two and a bit hours of a live show with nearly an hour of ad breaks, and rest holds and standing around for the most part while the show goes to break. You should be saying it's too hard to write two hours of TV despite the fact that they could do this fairly well once upon a time.

---

Regarding WM 31 - I am now thinking this whole thing could be a big masterful work of the fans. At least, I'm hoping that. That Roman Reigns is actually the authority's pick kind of writes itself. Because Reigns beating Lesnar is wholly unbelievable, a big screwjob finish makes the most sense and in this way wouldn't waste the rub that Lesnar was given from beating the Undertaker last year, because he'd still look really strong if it took a massive interference beatdown to get the job done - maybe even a betrayal by Heyman. They could really get some nuclear heat going if it was that the Authority paid off Heyman and blackmailed Bryan and Henry into helping Roman look strong, and you could get that super face-turn from Rollins as well. There's a lot of potential there if they could do any of the stuff right. Of course, looking at the rest of the card it would be hard to think they have anything like that foresight going on, so ho-hum I suppose. But what could have been, eh?

Scary to think, though, that some people think HHH is the messiah for having NXT and they can't wait 'til he fully takes over, but yet by all accounts Reigns was his pick despite Reigns' overwhelming dullness and unpopularity. Something really does not add up there.

bobby_says_hi

Well Reigns might have been his pick but the promos and booking probably wasn't his idea

briany

bobby_says_hi wrote: »

Well Reigns might have been his pick but the promos and booking probably wasn't his idea

If you were Triple H and had the stroke to pick the 'next top guy' but none of the stroke to actually have a meaningful impact on his direction, you probably just wouldn't bother 'cause you know deep down it wouldn't turn out anything like you want.

veganrun

Finn Balor's entrance is cool.

rovert

veganrun wrote: »

Finn Balor's entrance is cool.

For a Broadway production

Machismo Fan

briany wrote: »

Scary to think, though, that some people think HHH is the messiah for having NXT and they can't wait 'til he fully takes over, but yet by all accounts Reigns was his pick despite Reigns' overwhelming dullness and unpopularity. Something really does not add up there.

I'm the furthest thing from a HHH fan but let's not pretend picking Reigns as the next top guy is some unfathomable mistake. Coming out of The Shield he looked like he was going to take the world by storm. It's how he's been booked since that derailed him.

mrkiscool2

rovert wrote: »

For a Broadway production

Take it your not a fan then rovert? I for one love it.

Stereomaniac

Yeah, what's the story there rovert, you're usually gushing over everything to do with Devitt.

rovert

Bit of a traditionalist and it simply looks silly and non-main event. Not in denial that it is over and works currently though.

CSF

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I'm the furthest thing from a HHH fan but let's not pretend picking Reigns as the next top guy is some unfathomable mistake. Coming out of The Shield he looked like he was going to take the world by storm. It's how he's been booked since that derailed him.

I really don't think so. Even in the immediate aftermath it was Ambrose everyone cared about, not Reigns. People have liked the Superman punch, that's about all he's ever had IMO. The best he's ever been is an Anyone But Batista option.

veganrun

I think they should keep belt on Lesnar. Build him to be this strong, unbeatable monster (which he pretty much is anyway) by having him keep the belt for at least a year or two. That will give them time to build someone up who can eventually defeat him.

briany

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I'm the furthest thing from a HHH fan but let's not pretend picking Reigns as the next top guy is some unfathomable mistake. Coming out of The Shield he looked like he was going to take the world by storm. It's how he's been booked since that derailed him.

It's been shown time and time again that, in wrestling, if the fans don't truly buy that it's your turn, no amount of booking can save you. You can't avoid having to build that groundswell of support in this day and age to be an enduring face, which he hasn't done, and that is earned through being entertaining in all aspects. Through that, respect of the fans is gained. Triple H and Vince ought to know at least that much.

veganrun

Rollins must be running out of time soon enough to cash in MITB? I can't see him cashing it in against Lesnar and winning, assuming Lesnar is staying around and keeping the belt.

gerrybbadd

He has until June 29th 2015 to cash in

jaykhunter

WWE having their cake and eating it too with a ladder match at Mania and having MITB as it's own PPV

briany

jaykhunter wrote: »

WWE having their cake and eating it too with a ladder match at Mania and having MITB as it's own PPV

What, multi-man ladder matches should be a sole dominion of MiTB?

Stereomaniac

No. I don't think so. Hell, I'd like to see a ladder match appear more often than it does even.

briany

Stereomaniac wrote: »

No. I don't think so. Hell, I'd like to see a ladder match appear more often than it does even.

It would be nice in that they tend to be spectacular matches. Of course, they have the potential to be quite dangerous as well and I doubt WWE wants to roll those dice more often than they feel they need to.

Stereomaniac

Well there's that side of it too. That's why I always find it a bit strange when people say that the TLC matches are their favourite. But the ones with less risks and more tension are great.