WCW ongoing thread

[El-P]

Was he the Taylor Made Man at this point? Legit contender for second worst Taylor gimmick ever.

He was. Changed his name after he left the York Foundation (which ended the gimmick, damn, no more Terri Runnels badly dressed as a secretary). There was really not gimmick to it to be fair. Terry Taylor was always an arrogant asshole to begin with, so naming himself the Taylor Made Man was a cute name without any repercussion on his work or character. Hell, at least he got pushed a bit and got a belt as opposed to the York Foundation days (which I enjoyed a lot because it garanteed a good match on every TV show, unless Tommy Rich was working single of course).

 

Valentine in WCW in the 90s always comes off as odd to me for some reason.

I love Valentine, and he's one of those guys who can age and deliver the same offense than 15 years prior really. Just an old grumpy stiff fuck. I wish he had more of a role during the decade infact. I was glad to see him work a few matches during the Nitro era too.

[El-P]

Also, this is as good a time as any to mention the fact that I HATTTEEE the US tag titles. I really hate them. Most pointless tag belts of all time. Hate the NWA National Tag titles too.

At one time there were so many teams around that they could really bring something to the undercards. Kinda like the All Asia Tag Team Titles in AJ. The US tag team titles matches were mostly quite fun until the end, which is coming very soon.

[JerryvonKramer]

They often made no sense though. Were Arn and Ole an undercard team? Or the Midnights? Or the Fabulous Ones? You get teams vacating those titles because they won the world titles.

 

Then from about 1990 onwards around the time the Hayes / Garvin Freebirds had them and the likes of the Patriots and the Young Pistols and bloody Big Josh, you're talking about the most meaningless titles ever.

 

Apart from probably the 6-man titles.

 

One thing that I've never liked about NWA is the overkill on titles. Reckon the pure World, IC and Tag titles that Vince ran for years was the best formula. When was that wrecked? When they brought in the European title probably.

[El-P]

Then from about 1990 onwards around the time the Hayes / Garvin Freebirds had them and the likes of the Patriots and the Young Pistols and bloody Big Josh, you're talking about the most meaningless titles ever.

Z-Man & Pillman vs MX was a really good little feud. Southern Boys vs MX had amazing matches.

Yes, when it came down to the Patriots, that sucked, but they didn't get the belts very long, and at that time I agree the titles were beginning to not mean that much. Quicky title switch from the Young Pistols (who were an excellent team as the Southern Boys, only got killed by the gimmick change and heel turn) to Ron Simmons & Big Josh, which is pretty random, but hey, stupid gimmick aside, any title on Matt Borne I'm fine with. Then onto Greg Valentine & Terry Taylor which is pretty neat. Like I said there wasn't that many tag teams anymore, so the titles had to go away, and they did. But back in 89/90, the number of tag teams was huge, so it had a justification then.

[Mad Dog]

They ruined that formula when they had that Road Dogg/Godfather/Goldust run of champions with the IC belt.

 

I disagree. More titles equals more fun to me. I thought the World/U.S./TV/World Tag/U.S. Tag was the best format for belts. I think both formats can be done correctly and incorrectly. If you look at the NWA in 1985 they had a shitload of belts but they were all focused on and seemed important. Ric Flair was defending the World Title from Koloff and Dusty, Magnum TA and Tully were going at it for the U.S. belt, the RNR had the Russians and Midnights to deal with, the Andersons were fighting a lot of makeshift face teams, Terry Taylor was pinballing trying to capture a belt. Good booking makes any title setup work.

[JerryvonKramer]

I can see a place for the TV title, but not for the US tag titles. I am exhausted right now, but with a bit more energy tomorrow may be willing to dig into some reasons for thinking that.

 

I disagree though, I think less is more with titles. By Starrcade 85, for example, stuff like the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship was a total anachronism. Guys like Sam Houston and Black Bart shouldn't have titles for where they are on the roster.

[Loss]

The number of titles were fine at different times in JCP when the belts were pushed as important. During the Dusty/Tully period, they could headline house shows with TV title matches. After 1986, that would not have been possible. The U.S. title was probably a main event championship until the end of Rude's run in '92.

 

I generally agree that less is more on titles, but at different points, JCP was able to make them a key part of the big picture. But still, I agree there were too many.

 

What has hurt championships in all promotions has been when something gets branded a midcard belt. That tells me I don't need to care. If you look at how the IC title was presented in 80s WWF, most of the wrestlers who had runs with it were headliners who were seen as stars. It also had a unique appeal and while it's forgotten sometimes, there was a segment of the WWF fanbase that probably followed that title picture more closely than anything in the company.

 

Devaluing of belts is something that actually pre-dates what we often refer to as "modern wrestling". For the national promotions in the US, I think you can trace it all the way back to the 80s.

[Mad Dog]

I can see a place for the TV title, but not for the US tag titles. I am exhausted right now, but with a bit more energy tomorrow may be willing to dig into some reasons for thinking that.

 

I disagree though, I think less is more with titles. By Starrcade 85, for example, stuff like the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship was a total anachronism. Guys like Sam Houston and Black Bart shouldn't have titles for where they are on the roster.

I disagree. If you can have two singles champions in your promotion then why not have two tag team champions? There are teams I wouldn't necessarily put my top tag belts on but should get a run. The Fantastics are a perfect example of that to me. I wouldn't make them my top tag team in a national promotion but they were a good team and I think make for a perfect secondary title tag team. It all comes back to booking. If you can make two sets of teams compelling at the same time, then why not have two sets of champions. I think WCW pulled it off well for a long time.

[Loss]

I would say that there usually isn't the same amount of depth in the tag team division that there is in singles to warrant two titles. There also typically wasn't this hierarchy booking in tag divisions that made clear the difference in the type of teams that challenged for one title vs the other. The Midnights and Fantastics could have just as easily feuded over the world titles in '88. 1990 WCW had one of the deepest tag team rosters I can recall a company having, and I'm not sure they needed two titles.

[Mad Dog]

I think the ability to have two sets of tag titles died when Bischoff ruined the WCW tag team division in 1998. My post is more about theory than practice really. Some companies can't even handle a World/Tag/Secondary set up these days.

[Loss]

Well, some companies can't even book their world title properly now.

 

But yeah, I do agree that it's possible to have several titles in a promotion and make them all valuable. If you look at the origin of territories creating TV titles, their purpose was to have a title that could be defended on television to draw ratings. That's why I always thought it was silly that the tournament to crown the first champion took place at an Omni house show.

 

In a perfect world, the tag titles would be main event belts on equal standing with the world title.

 

Your secondary titles may not be the guys who are headlining, but they are guys who could very easily move into the top spot if needed.

 

Somewhere along the way, the idea became to give wrestlers belts to get them over. I can't think of a single time in history that has ever worked. I think it's a better idea to put belts on wrestlers people care about.

[Mad Dog]

Yeah, I think Randy Orton and HHH are prime examples of giving the belt to someone to get them over.

 

I think that theory falls apart because to get them over with the belt, you ultimately sacrifice someone that should have the belt. I go back to that Royal Rumble match where the crowd just totally deflated when Orton beat Hardy to retain the belt. I think that was a perfect example of sacrificing someone that should have the belt due to people caring about them in favor of trying to get someone over with the belt.

 

I view secondary titles as the height that a mid-carder can achieve or a test run for a future World Champion. Tully Blanchard as U.S. Champion was a mid-carder achieving his height of singles gold success, Magnum TA was a future World Champion getting a test run with a belt. I think now the belts are just there for something to do. You win the IC belt and lose it and then it never matters or builds to anything ever again.

[Dylan Waco]

1990 WCW had more good and interesting tag teams than they had good and interesting singles wrestlers by a healthy margin.

 

As a kid I LOVED the concept of the U.S. titles because it felt like an "on deck" position in terms of who was in line to get to the big belt. Also even as a kid the U.S. belt felt like the tag belts that were given to the good, reliable workers, sort of like the IC title in the WWF up until the era of HTM.

 

It's kind of hard to articulate all these years later because I am going off memories that I had as a child. But at the time I loved the idea of the U.S. tag belts and I really liked 1990 WCW which is funny because in hindsight the top of the card was a fucking disaster that year

[Mad Dog]

I loved the gimmick of the U.S. Champion being the default No. 1 Contender for the World Title. It made the belt seem more important. I've even crafted angles in fantasy booking around that idea more than a few times.

[Johnny Guitar]

1990 WCW had more good and interesting tag teams than they had good and interesting singles wrestlers by a healthy margin.

 

As a kid I LOVED the concept of the U.S. titles because it felt like an "on deck" position in terms of who was in line to get to the big belt. Also even as a kid the U.S. belt felt like the tag belts that were given to the good, reliable workers, sort of like the IC title in the WWF up until the era of HTM.

 

It's kind of hard to articulate all these years later because I am going off memories that I had as a child. But at the time I loved the idea of the U.S. tag belts and I really liked 1990 WCW which is funny because in hindsight the top of the card was a fucking disaster that year

It's worth remembering that during this time the Apter mags were pushing big time the idea of the WWF having an IC tag team team title too.

[Dylan Waco]

No bullshit I was about to point out the fact that the existence of Apter Mags also helped those secondary titles a lot in my mind as a kid as they would talk them up and of course featured the rankings in the back.

[Johnny Guitar]

They often made no sense though. Were Arn and Ole an undercard team? Or the Midnights? Or the Fabulous Ones? You get teams vacating those titles because they won the world titles.

 

Then from about 1990 onwards around the time the Hayes / Garvin Freebirds had them and the likes of the Patriots and the Young Pistols and bloody Big Josh, you're talking about the most meaningless titles ever.

 

Apart from probably the 6-man titles.

 

One thing that I've never liked about NWA is the overkill on titles. Reckon the pure World, IC and Tag titles that Vince ran for years was the best formula. When was that wrecked? When they brought in the European title probably.

That was a big deal when they bought it though.

 

 

No bullshit I was about to point out the fact that the existence of Apter Mags also helped those secondary titles a lot in my mind as a kid as they would talk them up and of course featured the rankings in the back.

I agree with you dude. The Apter Mags put over tag teams huge. Stuff like the Crocket Cup and the Survivor Series tag team matches were treated like a massive deal.

[artDDP]

I agree with you dude. The Apter Mags put over tag teams huge. Stuff like the Crocket Cup and the Survivor Series tag team matches were treated like a massive deal.

I think the Apter mags were the biggest reason I was so into tag team wrestling as a kid.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I agree with you dude. The Apter Mags put over tag teams huge. Stuff like the Crocket Cup and the Survivor Series tag team matches were treated like a massive deal.

I think the Apter mags were the biggest reason I was so into tag team wrestling as a kid.

 

And yet for a long time, they would never list the teams by their team name, with the exception of The Road Warriors. It was always "Ricky Morton and Robert Gibson" and "Stan Lane and Steve Keirn". If I remember correctly, it wasn't until late 86 when they went with Team names.

[El-P]

The Saturday Night show with the talk-show format is interesting. It's different. I enjoyed interviews with Simmons and broken-face Steamboat, it comes off more legit than the "backstage skits" that have overstayed their welcome by a long long time now. To think there basically hasn't been any change to wrestling TV format in the last 12-14 years is pretty depressing.

The 2/3 falls match every week is a bad idea though. Very bad idea. This stipulation only works when you do really long match anyway, on a short TV format it forces the workers to get stupid quick pin à la Survivor Series, and it's lame. Plus I don't want to suffer through Nikita Koloff doing 2/3 falls match. I don't want to see the Freebirds do 2/3 falls matches. God, the Freebirds were unbearable at this point. They had their up and downs since they formed the Hayes/Garvin team in late 89, but they are solidly back into my shitlist. They made Taylor/Valentine boring to watch, and I like Taylor/Valentine a lot. They are just no fun at all, on any level. Hell, I've seen a Vinnie Vegas/DDP vs Simmons/JYD match that was more fun than this. Can't wait until they finally go away. Michael Hayes is embarrassing, fat, balding, doing a shitty moonwalk and horrible pseudo-glam rock gimmick in 1992. Even PN News seems relevant compared to Hayes at this point. He's already Dok Hendrix.

[El-P]

Holy shit. Larry Zbyszko and Nikita Koloff going 20 minutes in a 2/3 falls. Just terrible. 3/4 of the match consisting of restholds. Horrible match, just a retarded booking idea. Koloff is just brutal. Brutal promos, brutal work. Totally worthless. Why was he even brought back after being such a flop in 91 ?

[FLIK]

There also typically wasn't this hierarchy booking in tag divisions that made clear the difference in the type of teams that challenged for one title vs the other.

I always thought AJW did a great job of pulling off that style of booking. They had as many as 8 or 9 titles at one point including 3 tag belts for a while but it never felt like too much because there was a pretty strict heirarchy of belt X is for ppl at this lvl and you could have fun tracking diffrent wrestlers over their careers as they climbed the ladder and progressed to getting to challenge for higher & higher ranked championships.

[El-P]

WCW Saturday Night with guest host Bill Fralic. Do you think Ross is gonna talk about wrestling ? I'm dying.

[El-P]

Jason Hervey calling a boring 35 minutes match between Arn and Big Josh. I'm dying again.

I'm sure Triple H loved those 2/3 falls matches on WCW Saturday Nights, because putting workers who had no business working that long seems to be the whole point.

[Loss]

Yeah, it's interesting, because they had a roster that was deep enough to do great matches every week in that spot, but rarely hit that level. In my vision in my head, it would be where you put matches that are good pairings, but would never headline a PPV. Rude vs Pillman and Dustin would have been good here. Sting vs Austin. You get the idea.